Jharkhand High Court
Kartik Bedia (Aged About 37 Years) vs Deputy Commissioner on 13 October, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
( 2025:JHHC:31837 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 152 of 2018
1. Kartik Bedia (Aged about 37 years)
S/O Late Sukar Bedia
2. Chandra @ Chandu Bedia (Aged about 35 years)
S/o of Late Parna Bedia
3. Mostt. Shanichriya Devi, w/o Late Shivcharan (substituted vide
order dated 10.10.2025)
3(a) Sabita Kumari (aged 23 years)
3(b) Poonam Kumari (aged 18 years)
Both daughters of Late Shivcharan Bedia
4. Jarku Bedia, son of Late Tubki (aged 55 years)
All residents of Village- Kadru,
P.S. Patratu, P.O.- Barkakana, Dist- Ramgarh.
... ... Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh now Ramgarh, PO+PS-
Ramgarh, Dist.- Ramgarh
2. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Const.) East Central Railway, P.O-
Barkakana, P.S. - Patratu, Dist. Ramgarh.
... ... Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 154 of 2018
1. Balku Bedia (Aged about 30 years)
2. Jitu Bedia (Aged about 25 years)
Both grandsons of Late. Sukhlal Mahto
{sons of Late Bhima Bedia}
Both residents of Village- Kadru, P.S- Patratu, P.O- Naya Nagar,
Barkakana, Dist-Ramgarh.
... ... Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand, through Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh
now Ramgarh, PO+PS- Ramgarh, Dist-Ramgarh.
2. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Const.) East Central Railway, P.O-
Barkakana P.S-Patratu, Dist. Ramgarh.
... ... Opposite Parties/Respondents
3. Arjun Bedia
Grandson of Late Sukhlal Mahto
(Son of Late Kishun Bedia)
4. Prayag Bedia
Grandson of Late Sukhlal Mahto
(Son of Late Khema Mahto)
3 and 4 residents of Village- Kadru,
P.S. Patratu, P.O.- Naya Nagar, Barkakana, Dist- Ramgarh.
... ... Petitioners/Awardees/Performa Respondents
( 2025:JHHC:31837 )
With
F.A. No. 156 of 2018
1. Most. Rathiya Devi (Aged about 63 years)
W/o late Bandhan Bedia
2. Asharam Bedia (Aged about 47 years)
3. Jairam Bedia (Aged about 43 years)
Both S/o Late Bandhan Bedia
4. Most Surji devi (Aged about 53 years)
W/o late Nirmal Bedia
5. Balkishore Bedia (Aged about 26 years)
6. Sandeep Bedia (Aged about 23 years)
7. Gurdayal Bedia (Aged about 20 years)
8. Suraj Bedia (Aged about 19 years)
5 to 8 S/O late Nirmal Bedia
All residents of Village- Kadru, P.S.- Patratu, P.O- Barkakana,
Dist- Ramgarh.
... ... Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh now Ramgarh, PO+PS-
Ramgarh, Dist- Ramgarh
2. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Const.) East Central Railway, P.O-
Barkakana, P.S. - Patratu, Dist. Ramgarh.
... ... Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 160 of 2018
Gobardhan Munda (Aged about 39 years)
S/O Late Jeetman Munda
Resident of Village- Kadru, P.S- Patratu, P.O- Naya Nagar,
Barkakana, Dist.- Ramgarh.
... ... Applicant/Appellant
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh now Ramgarh, PO+PS-
Ramgarh, Dist.- Ramgarh
2. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Const.) East Central Railway, P.O-
Barkakana, P.S. - Patratu, Dist. Ramgarh.
... ... Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 161 of 2018
1. Shivcharan Bedia @Shivnarayan Bedia (Aged about 40 years)
2. Bhinu Bedia (Aged about 38 years)
1 & 2 S/o Late Ramcharan Bedia
All residents of Village- Kadru,
P.S- Patratu, P.O-Barkakana, Dist-Ramgarh.
... ... Applicants/Appellants
Versus
2
( 2025:JHHC:31837 )
1. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh now Ramgarh, PO+PS-
Ramgarh, Dist- Ramgarh
2. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Const.) East Central Railway, P.O-
Barkakana, P.S. - Patratu, Dist. Ramgarh.
... ... Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 163 of 2018
1. Bhukhal @ Bhukhlu Bedia (Aged about 48 years)
2. Dashrath Bedia (Aged about 43 years)
3. Motilal Bedia (Aged about 40 years)
4. Sugriv Bedia (Aged about 37 years)
All sons of Late. Sohrai Bedia
All residents of Village- Kadru,
P.S- Patratu, P.O- Naya Nagar, Barkakana, Dist-Ramgarh.
... ... Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh now Ramgarh, PO+PS-
Ramgarh, Dist- Ramgarh.
2. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Const.) East Central Railway, P.O-
Barkakana, P.S. - Patratu, Dist. Ramgarh.
... ... Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 166 of 2018
1. Ganesh Karmali (Aged about 40 years)
2. Mahesh Karmali (Aged about 38 years)
3. Suresh Karmali (Aged about 35 years)
1 to 3 S/o Late Jagu Karmali
4. Most. Pratima Devi (Aged about 58 years)
W/O Late Naresh Karmali
5. Khushbu Kumari (Aged about 22 years)
D/O Late Naresh Karmali
6. Rishi Karmali (Aged about 19 years)
S/O Late Naresh Karmali
All residents of Village- Kadru,
P.S-Patratu, P.O- Barkakana, Dist-Ramgarh.
... ... Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh now Ramgarh, PO+PS-
Ramgarh, Dist- Ramgarh.
2. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Const.) East Central Railway, P.O-
Barkakana, P.S. - Patratu, Dist. Ramgarh.
... ... Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 167 of 2018
3
( 2025:JHHC:31837 )
1. Basudev Bedia (Aged about 26 years)
2. Sukhdev Bedia (Aged about 24 years)
3. Dukhi Bedia (Aged about 21 years)
All Grandsons of Late Bhola Bedia
(S/O Late Sitku Bedia)
All residents of Village- Kadru,
P.S- Patratu, P.O- Barkakana, Dist-Ramgarh.
... ... Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh now Ramgarh, PO+PS-
Ramgarh, Dist- Ramgarh.
2. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Const.) East Central Railway, P.O-
Barkakana, P.S. - Patratu, Dist. Ramgarh.
... ... Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 169 of 2018
1. Badhan Bedia (Aged about 50 years)
2. Jivlal Bedia (Aged about 47 years)
Both S/O Late Kushal Bedia
Resident of Village- Kadru,
P.S- Patratu, P.O- Barkakana, Dist-Ramgarh.
... ... Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh now Ramgarh, PO+PS-
Ramgarh, Dist- Ramgarh.
2. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Const.) East Central Railway, P.O-
Barkakana, P.S. - Patratu, Dist. Ramgarh.
... ... Opposite Parties/Respondents
With
F.A. No. 170 of 2018
Nandu Karmali (Aged about 38 years)
s/o Late Ramlal Karmali
All residents of Village- Kadru,
P.S- Patratu, P.O- Naya Nagar, Barkakana, Dist.-Ramgarh.
... ... Applicant/Appellant
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh now Ramgarh, PO+PS-
Ramgarh, Dist.- Ramgarh.
2. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Const.) East Central Railway, P.O-
Barkakana, P.S. - Patratu, Dist. Ramgarh.
... ... Opposite Parties/Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
( 2025:JHHC:31837 )
For the Appellants : Mr. Mitul Kumar, Advocate
For the (Railway) : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Sr. Panel Counsel
Union of India : Ms. Bakshi Vibha, Advocate (in all cases)
For the State : Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, A.C. to G.A. IV
( In F.A. No. 152 of 2018)
For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate
(In F.A. No. 154 of 2018)
For the State : Mr. Nawal Kishor Pandey, A.C. to S.C. (L&C) I
---
06/13.10.2025 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. All the first appeals being F.A No. 152 of 2018 , F.A No. 154
of 2018, F.A No. 156 of 2018, F.A. No. 160 of 2018, F.A. No. 161 of
2018, F.A. No. 163 of 2018, F.A. No. 166 of 2018, F.A. No. 167 of
2018, F.A. No. 169 of 2018 and F.A. No. 170 of 2018 have been filed
against the common Judgment dated 12.12.2017 (Award sealed and
signed on 22.12.2017) passed by the learned Sr. Civil Judge-II-cum-
Special Judge, L.R. Cases, Ramgarh in L.R. Case Nos. 94/2012,
72/2012, 80/2012, 75/2012, 84/2012, 240/2012, 99/2012, 77/2012,
87/2012 and 88/2012 respectively whereby and whereunder the
learned court has awarded less compensation @ Rs.3,000/- per
decimal for all classes of land to the appellants. The appellants-
claimants have preferred these appeals for enhancement of the
compensation @ Rs.8,000/- per decimal for all classes of land.
3. Learned counsel for the parties have also submitted that the
appellants are aggrieved by the grant of compensation at less amount
@ Rs. 3,000/- for all classes of land to the appellants and the
appellants have preferred these appeals for enhancement of
compensation @ Rs. 8000/- per decimal for all classes of land. They
have jointly submitted that all the appeals arise out of same land
acquisition process with respect to the village Kadru and identical
issues are involved in all these cases.
4. The learned counsel for the parties has jointly submitted that all
these first appeals arise out of Land Reference cases and nomenclature
of all the cases decided by the learned court is L.R. Case. They submit
that all appeals arise out of Land Acquisition case No. 20 of 2004-05.
The First Appeals and the corresponding L.R. Cases are as under: -
( 2025:JHHC:31837 )
Land Reference Case No. Corresponding First Appeal No.
L.R. Case No. 94 of 2012 F.A. No. 152 of 2018
L.R. Case No. 72 of 2012 F.A. No. 154 of 2018
L.R. Case No. 80 of 2012 F.A. No. 156 of 2018
L.R. Case No. 75 of 2012 F.A. No. 160 of 2018
L.R. Case No. 84 of 2012 F.A. No. 161 of 2018
L.R. Case No. 240 of 2012 F.A. No. 163 of 2018
L.R. Case No. 99 of 2012 F.A. No. 166 of 2018
L.R. Case No. 77 of 2012 F.A. No. 167 of 2018
L.R. Case No. 87 of 2012 F.A. No. 169 of 2018
L.R. Case No. 88 of 2012 F.A. No. 170 of 2018
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that all the first
appeals out of acquisition of lands of Village-Kadru and identical
issues are involved in all these cases.
6. Learned counsels for the parties have jointly submitted that
arising out of the same impugned judgment passed by the learned
court and in relation to the same village, namely, Kadru, arising out of
the same notification for acquisition of land, this Court has decided
other appeals being F.A. No. 176 of 2018 and other analogous cases
vide judgment dated 25.03.2025.
7. The learned counsels have jointly submitted that these appeals
are squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court
and these appeals may also be disposed of in the same terms. The
operative portion of the aforesaid judgement passed by this court is
quoted as under: -
"41. All these first appeals are hereby allowed with the
modification of the award only with respect to the rate
of compensation for the acquired land and the
impugned judgement is modified as under: -
"Considering the development of all the
surrounding areas as well as industries of the
area, the compensation rate should be Rs.7000/-
per decimal. Accordingly, the appellants shall be
entitled to get compensation at the rate of
Rs.7000/- per decimal. The appellants shall be
( 2025:JHHC:31837 )
entitled for solatium and other benefit also as
admissible under the Act."
8. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and with the
consent of the parties, the present appeals are also disposed of in terms
of the judgment dated 25.03.2025 passed by this Court in F.A. No.
176 of 2018 and other analogous cases.
9. Accordingly, these first appeals are hereby allowed with the
modification of the respective awards only with respect to the rate of
compensation for the acquired land and the impugned judgement is
modified as under: -
"Considering the development of all the surrounding areas
as well as industries of the area, the compensation rate
should be Rs.7000/- per decimal. Accordingly, the
appellants shall be entitled to get compensation at the rate
of Rs.7000/- per decimal. The appellants shall be entitled
for solatium and other benefit also as admissible under the
Act."
10. At this, the learned counsels for the parties have also submitted
that the lead case decided by this court is F.A. No. 176 of 2018 along
with other analogous cases which was decided vide order dated
25.03.2025. While deciding the lead case and analogous cases, there
was no defect pointed out by the office regarding the nomenclature of
the cases decided by the learned civil court (Land Reference case or
Land Acquisition case) and same judgement is impugned in present
first appeals also. However, out of the batch of cases listed today, in
only two cases i.e. F.A. No. 154 of 2018 and F.A. No. 170 of 2018
there has been a defect pointed out by the office regarding
nomenclature and the learned civil court has mechanically changed the
nomenclature of the all the L.R. Cases decided by the impugned
judgement as L.A cases which also includes those cases decided
earlier vide F.A. No. 176 of 2018 along with other analogous cases.
They jointly submit that the case arise out of Reference case and the
correct nomenclature is L.R. Case and not L.A. Case. Accordingly,
they submit that it be recorded that in F.A. No. 154 of 2018 and F.A.
( 2025:JHHC:31837 )
No. 170 of 2018, the nomenclature of the case decided by the learned
court be taken as L.R. Case and not L.A. Case.
11. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is directed that the
correct nomenclature of the cases decided by the learned trial court in
F.A. No. 154 of 2018 and F.A. No. 170 of 2018 would be L.R. Case
and not L.A. Case. The learned counsel for the appellants shall carry
out necessary correction in the memo of appeals i.e. in F.A. No. 154
of 2018 and in F.A. No. 170 of 2018. While preparing the decree, the
office shall take the case number of the impugned judgement as L.R.
Case and not L.A. Case.
12. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.
13. Let a copy of this judgment and also the appellate decree be
communicated to the court concerned through 'e-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Dated: 13/10/2025
Binit
