Budhram Nagesia Vs the State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga

¶1

2026:JHHC:8033

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1794 of 2026

¶3

Budhram Nagesia, aged about 71 years.

¶4

Sudhram Nagesai aged about 57 years both sons of Late Dukhu Nagesia, resident of Village-Pakhar, Sarnapat, PO & PS-Kisko, Dist-Lohardaga at present both, R/o Rehaldag, Janhupath, PO + PS-Bishunpur, Ghaghra, Dist-Gumla.

¶5

… … Petitioner(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga, PO & PS-Lohardaga, Dist-Lohardaga.

¶8

District Sub-Registrar, Lohardaga, PO & PS-Lohardaga, DistLohardaga.

¶9

Circle Officer, Kisko, PO & PS-Kisko, Dist-Lohardaga.

¶10

Hindalco Industries Ltd. through its Managing Director, having its office at 21^st Floor, One Unity Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, PO & PS-Prabhadevi, Mumbai, Dist-Mumbai.

¶11

… … Respondent(s)

¶12

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶13

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, SC-I

¶14

Mr. Ankit Kumar, AC to SC-I Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Ms. Puja Agarwal, Advocate

¶15

02/ 23^rd March, 2026

¶16

1. Heard the parties.

¶17

2. It is the grievance of the petitioners that one fine morning, they came to know that their land has been leased out by some third party in favour of respondent No.4 and the compensation thereof has been deposited with the State by the respondent No.4. On this background, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has approached this Court, praying for injunction and recovery of the land and/or payment of compensation.

¶18

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the land is recorded in the Register-II in the name of Dhurpa Nagesia, who is ancestor of the petitioners. The petitioners rely upon a genealogical table, which is at Annexure-1, to impress this Court that they are the descendent and have the right, title and interest on the property in question. He submits that the land is also in possession of these petitioners. It is their contention that partition suit being Original (Partition) Suit No.92/2024 has been instituted by the petitioners for partition of the said land amongst the agnates and the suit has been filed by the

¶19

1

¶20

2026:JHHC:8033

¶21

petitioners against Budhuwa Nagesia and two others. The original plaint has also been brought on record.

¶22

4. It is the grievance that during pendency of the said original suit, the respondent-authorities have leased out the said plot of land to respondent No.4-M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. The grievance of the petitioners is that there was no proceeding under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 or under any provision of law. It is the grievance that the land could not have been leased out to respondent No.4 without initiating any proceeding or passing any award. It is his contention that the entire land has been leased out by a third party.

¶23

5. After going through records, I find that neither the lease-deed is on record nor there is anything to suggest as to who has leased out the land in absence of the lease-deed. Further, a partition suit is pending between the petitioners and their agnates.

¶24

6. Admittedly, as per the petitioners, the land has been leased out to respondent No.4. In case of lease of land, there is no application of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 or the Land Acquisition Act as admittedly, the land has not been acquired, which will give any right to the petitioner to seek compensation.

¶25

7. As per the submission made by the petitioners’ counsel on instruction of the petitioners, it transpires that it is the case of petitioners that some third party has leased out the land of the petitioners to respondent No.4 and respondent No.4 has deposited the lease rent to the State. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on query, submits that they are not aware as to who has leased out the land in question.

¶26

8. All these disputes cannot be decided in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the land has been leased out after taking permission from the Deputy Commissioner under the C.N.T. Act, which provides for that, it will be open to the petitioners to approach the Deputy Commissioner, by filling a representation, ventilating their grievance.

¶27

9. If it is found that the land actually belongs to the petitioners and has been leased out by some third party, who does not have any concerned with the land nor is the descendent of the

¶28

2

¶29

2026:JHHC:8033

¶30

original Raiyat , the Deputy Commissioner, will pass an appropriate order in that case.

¶31

10. If it is found that the land has been leased out by the any of the agnates of the petitioners, it will be open for the petitioners to approach the appropriate Civil Court for remedies.

¶32

11. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of .

¶33

12. Pending IA, if any also stands disposed.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

23.03.2026

S.K.D/CP-2

Uploaded on 26.03.2026