Dukhni Devi Alias Anima Devi Aged About ... vs State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 2608 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Dukhni Devi Alias Anima Devi Aged About ... vs State Of Jharkhand on 2 April, 2026

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                                       2026:JHHC:9367

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   W.P.(C) No. 4667 of 2021
                              .........

Dukhni Devi alias Anima Devi aged about 55 years daughter of Late Sathari Dutta and wife of Sunil Gan resident of New Kumhar Para Tika Baba Road Ghat Rasikpur, Dumka, P.O., P.S. and District Dumka ..... Petitioner (s) Versus

1. State of Jharkhand

2. Secretary, Revenue Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

3. Deputy Commissioner, Godda, P.O., P.S. and District-Godda.

4. District Land Acquisition Officer, Godda, P.O., P.S. and District Godda.

5. Additional Collector, Godda, P.O., P.S. and District - Godda.

6. Circle Officer, Godda, P.O., P.S. and District Godda.

7. National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, through its Project Director, Ministry of power, Government of India, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi, India, PO & PS. Rafi Marg, New Delhi

8. Sanatan Dutta

9. Santosh Dutta, both sons of Late Haradhan Dutta, Both residents of village Chhota Khadhara, (Dumaria Hatt), P.O. Mohanpur, P.S. Lalmatia, District Godda ..... Respondent(s) .........

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN .......

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, Adv For the Resp.-State : Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, A.C. to G.A.-V For the Resp. Nos. 8 & 9 : Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate Ms. Asfia Sultana, Advocate For the NTPC : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI Mr. Bajrang Kumar, A.C. to ASGI .........

C.A.V. ON 03/02/2026 PRONOUNCED ON: 02/04/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following

relief: -

2026:JHHC:9367

(i) For quashing of the order dated 28.01.2019 passed by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Godda in Misc.

Case No. 42 of 2018-19 contained in Annexure - 4 to the writ petition by which the respondent no. 4 has illegally rejected the claim of the petitioner with respect to payment of compensation on account of acquired lands appertaining to Dag No. 64, 66, 77,72 and 76 of khata no. 7 situated at mouza Khadhara Ghat, P.S. Mahagama, District-Godda;

(ii) For quashing the order 18.8.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda in Misc. Petition No. 06 of 2019 contained in Annexure - 5 to the writ petition by which the respondent no. 3 has illegally rejected the claim of the petitioners for payment of compensation with respect to the acquired lands;

(iii) For a direction to make payment of the amount of compensation with respect to the aforementioned acquired lands in accordance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

3. The brief facts as per the pleadings are that the land

appertaining to plot numbers 64, 66, 77, 72 and 76 having

Jamabandi number-7, situated within village-Khadhara

Ghat, police station-Mahagama in the district of Godda, was

acquired in Land Acquisition Case No. 34 of 2011-12. The

land forming subject matter of the instant petition was

recorded in the record of rights prepared during the

Gantzer's Survey in the name of Basudeo Choudhary and,

Raghunath Choudhary (sons of Kangal Dutt Choudhary)

and Uday Dutt Choudhary and Surendra Nath Choudhary

(sons of Kangal Dutt Choudhary) and Ashutosh Choudhary,

Sudhir Dutt Choudhary and Budhir Dutt Choudhary (sons

of Nirwaran Dutt Choudhary).

2026:JHHC:9367

Uday Dutt Choudhary was survived by his sons,

namely Banbihari Dutt Choudhary, Radha Nath Dutt and

Madhusudhan Dutt Choudhary. The petitioner is the

granddaughter of Madhusudhan Dutt Choudhary and

daughter of Satahari Dutt. The petitioner also has a brother

namely, Haradhan Dutt and as such the claim of the

petitioner is that she is entitled to ½ of the share in the

acquired land.

4. It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner

that she filed an application before the Deputy

Commissioner, Godda. The same was registered as Misc

Case No. 42 of 2018-19. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda,

after an enquiry, directed the District Land Acquisition

Officer, Godda, to consider the claim as per the applicable

rules.

5. The petitioner's claim was rejected on the ground that

the property was jointly held in the name of several

persons, and in absence of a partition, the award could not

be released in favour of one of such persons. This order

passed by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Godda, was

assailed before the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, which

was rejected on the ground of maintainability.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that

the award has been illegally prepared in the name of only

2026:JHHC:9367

Haradhan Dutt (brother of the petitioner), which is illegal

and as such ½ of the compensation amount ought to be

released in the favour of the petitioner.

7. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the State, has stated

that the beneficiary of the acquisition process is NTPC and

has supported the order.

8. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8 & 9 had

submitted that the impugned order does not require any

interference.

9. Mr. Prashant Pallav, Ld. Additional Solicitor General of

India, representing NTPC, has argued that the instant writ

is not maintainable. The actual remedy of the petitioner lies

before the Ld. Court in terms of Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894. Ld. ASGI indicated the averments

made in para 11 of the writ petition, which states that the

petitioner herself has conceded that the Deputy

Commissioner, Godda, has no jurisdiction.

He, however, objects to the assertion made by the

petitioner that the matter ought to have been referred to an

'Arbitrator' as the Act, 1894 has no such provision.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after

going through the averments made in the respective

affidavits and the documents annexed therein; this Court

finds that dispute indeed pertains to apportionment, and

2026:JHHC:9367

the same must be adjudicated in terms of Section 18 of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Furthermore, as the land acquisition was made prior

to the enactment of "The Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013", and there is no pleading to suggest

that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed, the Court

finds force in the argument advanced by the Ld. ASGI that

the Act of 2013 would not come into play.

11. In light thereof, the relief sought by the petitioner

cannot be granted. However, the instant petition is disposed

of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the Collector

for referring the matter to the Ld. Court of competent

jurisdiction, in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894. The Respondent-State is directed to dispose of

the application, if made, within a period of 6 weeks from the

date of receipt of the application.

12. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands

disposed of. Pending IAs, if any, are closed. No order as to

cost.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:02/04/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R Uploaded on 06.04.2026