Dismissed¶22

Raunak Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Dec 2025WPC/1211/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compensation for road constructed over private land without acquisition (2001-02); belated writ petition after about 18 years; delay/laches; villagers' representation that land was given voluntarily and used as pagdandi; Syed Maqbool Ali vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 15 SCC 383 applied; compensation denied; writ petition dismissed; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Lohardaga; Rajesh Kumar, J.; neutral citation 2025:JHHC:36336.

What did the court decide?

In view of the Supreme Court's decision in Syed Maqbool Ali, where claims that land was taken without acquisition and without consent are made after several decades, the State would be at a disadvantage to contest the claim as it may not have the records to show the circumstances in which the land was given/donated; accordingly, the petitioner is not entitled to compensation.

Raunak Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:JHHC:36336

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.1211 of 2019

¶3

....

¶4

Raunak Ansari, aged about 45 years, son of Ashraful Ansari, resident of Anjuman Mohalla, Lohardaga, P.O.+P.S.+District-Lohardaga .… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The State of Jharkhand

¶7

2. Secretary, Road Construction Department, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O.Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi

¶8

3. Deputy Collector, Lohardaga, P.O.+P.S.+District-Lohardaga

¶9

4. Executive Engineer, Road Construction and Winding Department, Lohardaga, P.O.+P.S.+District-Lohardaga

¶10

5. Circle Officer, Lohardaga, P.O.+P.S.+District-Lohardaga .... Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Adv. : Mr. Shubham Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, AC to GA-IV

¶13

11/04.12.2025

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-

¶15

“For issuance of an appropriate writ/ writs, order/orders, direction/directions upon the Respondents not to construct road over the private land of the Petitioner though process/procedure for land acquisition were done by the Respondents and no compensation was paid to the Petitioner and more interesting no previous road in on the land of the Petitioner.”

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta has submitted that the State has constructed road in the year 2001-2002 and the petitioner’s land has neither been acquired nor compensation has been paid, thus the action of the respondents-authorities is colourable exercise of power for which the State must pay compensation to the petitioner.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondents/State has opposed the prayer and submitted that in the counter-affidavit he has annexed the villager's representation. The land was given by the villager in the year 2001-02 which was used as pagdandi in initial stage. Subsequently in the year 2001-02, metallic road was prepared and for that cause of action the petitioner after 18 years came before this Hon'ble Court.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondents/State has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Maqbool Ali vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2011) 15 SCC 383 para-12 of which may be profitably be quoted hereunder:-

¶19

2025:JHHC:36336

¶20

“12. The High Courts should also be cautious in entertaining writ petitions filed decades after the dispossession, seeking directions for acquisition and payment of compensation. It is not uncommon for villagers to offer/donate some part of their lands voluntarily for a public purpose which would benefit them or the community as for example, construction of an access road to the village or their property, or construction of a village tank or a bund to prevent flooding/erosion. When they offer their land for such public purpose, the land would be of little or negligible value. But decades later, when land values increase, either on account of passage of time or on account of developments or improvements carried out by the State, the landholders come up with belated claims alleging that their lands were taken without acquisition and without their consent. When such claims are made after several decades, the State would be at a disadvantage to contest the claim, as it may not have the records to show in what circumstances the lands were given/donated and whether the land was given voluntarily. Therefore, belated writ petitions, without proper explanation for the delay, are liable to be dismissed. Be that as it may.”

¶21

Considering the same, in view of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Maqbool Ali (supra), whereby it has been held that when such claims are made after several decades, the State would be at a disadvantage to contest the claim, as it may not have the records to show in what circumstances the lands were given/donated and whether the land was given voluntarily, the petitioner is not entitled for compensation.

¶22