Disposed¶5

Balai Babu v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Aug 2025WPC/198/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Balai Babu v. The State of Jharkhand — payment of awarded land-acquisition compensation; land acquired for National Highway No.33; 4 decimals, Plot No.1292, Khata No.200, Mouza Edalhatu, Ranchi; award of Rs. 12,62,208/-; amount deposited by NHAI with District Land Acquisition Officer by Demand Draft; admitted facts; mandamus under Article 226; direction to pay within six weeks; Jharkhand High Court; W.P. (C) No.198 of 2020.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.3 (District Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi cum Competent Authority, N.H. Act) to pay Rs. 12,62,208/- to the petitioner within six weeks from the petitioner producing a copy of the order before respondent No.3; writ petition disposed of accordingly. ¶5

Balai Babu Vs the State of Jharkhand — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents are liable to pay the petitioner the awarded compensation in lieu of his land measuring 4 decimals (Plot No.1292, Khata No.200, Mouza Edalhatu, Ranchi), acquired for National Highway No.33, the awarded amount of Rs. 12,62,208/- having been deposited with respondent No.3 — relief sought by way of mandamus under Article 226.

¶2

Court's answer

In view of the admitted facts of the case (existence of the award in favour of the petitioner for Rs. 12,62,208/- and its deposit with respondent No.3, not controverted by respondents 1 to 4), the writ petition is disposed of.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.3 is directed to pay Rs. 12,62,208/- to the petitioner within six weeks from the petitioner producing a copy of the order before respondent No.3.

¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) — W.P. (C) No.198 of 2020, decided 01.08.2025 — Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking mandamus for payment of compensation (award) in lieu of land measuring 4 decimals comprising Plot No.1292 under Khata No.200, Mouza Edalhatu, Ranchi, acquired by the State Government for construction of National Highway No.33 — Award prepared; awarded amount of Rs. 12,62,208/- deposited by NHAI (respondent No.5) with the District Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi (respondent No.3) by Demand Draft — Respondents 1 to 4 did not dispute in the counter-affidavit the award in favour of the petitioner — In view of the admitted facts, respondent No.3 directed to pay Rs. 12,62,208/- to the petitioner within six weeks from production of a copy of the order — Writ petition disposed of.

¶1

[2025:JHHC:21683]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.198 of 2020

¶3

------

¶4

Balai Babu, Aged about 45 years, Son of Lakhinarayan Babu, Resident of Village & P.O. Edalhatu, P.S. Bundu, District- Ranchi.

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, Office at Ranchi Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi.

¶9

District Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi cum Competent Authority, N.H. Act, Ranchi, Office at Ranchi Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi.

¶10

Circle Officer, Bundu, Ranchi, Office at Bundu Main Road, P.O. & P.S. Bundu, District- Ranchi.

¶11

National Highway Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit, Ranchi, B-402, Road No. 4C, Ashok Nagar, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Argora, District- Ranchi through Project Director.

¶12

… Respondents

¶13

------

¶14

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate Mrs. Nirupama, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Priyadarshi, GP VI For the Resp.- NHAI : Mrs. Sweety Topno, Advocate Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T

¶15

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶16

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶17

This Writ Petition (Civil) has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to pay compensation

¶18

¶19

W.P. (C) No.198 of 2020

¶20

[2025:JHHC:21683]

¶21

(Award) in lieu of land measuring 4 decimals comprising Plot No.1292 under Khata No.200 situated at Mouza- Edalhatu in the district of Ranchi.

¶22

The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land being the heir and successor of erstwhile owner of the land Tete Babu. The said land of the petitioner was acquired by the State Government for construction of the National Highway No.33. Pursuant to the same, the award was prepared and notice was published inviting the claimants to appear along with the necessary documents for settlement of their place. The respondent No.3 asked the respondent No.4 to submit a report after verification and the respondent No.4 submitted his report on 08.08.2016 but the awarded amount of Rs.12,62,208/- has been deposited by the respondent No.5 with the respondent No.3 by way of Demand Draft. The respondent No.1 to 4 have not controverted the fact that the respondent No.5 has paid Rs. 12,62,208/- to the respondent No.3 by way of Demand Draft. In their counter-affidavit, the respondent No.1 to 4 did not dispute that there is an award in favour of the petitioner for Rs. 12,62,208/-.

¶23

In view of the admitted facts of the case, this Writ Petition (Civil) is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3 to pay Rs. 12,62,208/- to the petitioner within six weeks from the petitioner producing copy of this order before the respondent No.3.

¶24

This Writ Petition (Civil) is disposed of with the aforesaid direction accordingly.

¶25

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶26

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 01^st of August, 2025 AFR/ Saroj

¶27

¶28

W.P. (C) No.198 of 2020

Balai Babu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balai Babu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Prasad Rajak Vs Commissioner,Santhal Pargana

Divisional Railway Manager Eastern Railway Vs Khagen Gope

Tulsi Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Gulam Rabbani Vs Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Council through Its Examination Controller

Mahabir Swarnkar Vs Prabha Devi

Rahul Raja Vs State of Jharkhand