Disposed¶18

Raj Kumar Karmali v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Jun 2026WPC/3502/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; W.P.(C) No. 3502 of 2020; disposed of on 16.06.2026 by Ananda Sen, J. Petitioners (Raj Kumar Karmali and Gopal Karmali), born after the 1965 land acquisition, were held unable to claim employment in lieu of the 1965 acquisition and were denied all benefits prayed for qua that acquisition; compensation for the 1965 acquisition was stated to have been duly paid and unchallenged. Claims regarding a separate 2023 acquisition were held to constitute a distinct cause of action outside the writ petition, with liberty to file a separate application. Respondents included the State of Jharkhand and Central Coalfields Limited officials.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a separate application in respect of the 2023 land acquisition. ¶18

Raj Kumar Karmali Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:JHHC:17447

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3502 of 2020

¶3

Raj Kumar Karmali, S/o Late Prayag Karmali, R/o Charhi, P.O. & P.S.-Charhi, Dist.-Hazaribagh 2. Gopal Karmali, S/o Late Prayag Karmali, R/o Charhi, P.O. & P.S.-Charhi, Dist.Hazaribagh .... Petitioner(s).

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Jharkhand

¶6

Central Coalfields Limited through its Chief Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O. & P.S.-Kutchery, Dist.-Ranchi

¶7

The General Manager (Land & Revenue), Central Coalfields Limited having having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O. & P.S.-Kutchery, Dist.-Ranchi

¶8

The General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Hazaribagh Area, having its office at P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Hazaribagh

¶9

The Project Officer, Jharkhand Mining Project, Ramgarh Area, Central Coalfields Limited having its office at P.O.-Kedla, P.S.-Kedla, Dist.-Ramgarh 6. The Circle Officer, Mandu, Dist.-Hazaribagh

¶10

. … Respondent(s)

¶11

¶12

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. -----For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Akhouri Sankalp, Advocate For the State : Ms. Oishi Das, AC to AG Mr. Shivam Kumar, AC to AG For the CCL Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate

¶13

¶14

11/16.06.2026 Since in this writ petition land were acquired in the year 1965 and admittedly the petitioners were not even born on that date, they cannot claim employment in lieu of such acquisition of land, which was made in the year 1965.

¶15

So far as compensation is concerned, counsel for the C.C.L. submits that acquisition of land was made in the year 1965 and the compensation was duly paid to the land owners and since the petitioners were not even born at that time, they cannot challenge the same, when the same was not challenged immediately or within considerable period by the land owners.

¶16

At this stage, counsel for the petitioners submits that in the year 2023, the land was acquired and the compensation and other rehabilitation benefits have not been granted to land losers, who are the petitioners. 4. Acquisition of land made in the year 2023 is not the subject matter of this writ petition and the same is a separate cause of action, as the land was acquired by separate notification. As these petitioners are aggrieved by acquisition of the land which had taken place in the year 2023, it will be open to them to file separate application. The same cannot be decided in this writ

¶17

petition, more so there is no such pleading made by the petitioners in this writ petition.

¶18

Thus, with the aforesaid liberty this writ petition stands disposed of, as the petitioners are not entitled for any benefit as prayed for in this writ petition qua the acquisition of the land made in the year 1965.

¶19

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶20

16^th June, 2026 Anu/ SKC-CP-02

Raj Kumar Karmali v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Karmali 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Ali Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand

Rahul Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mohd. Farukh Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanchla Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

Central Board of Trustee through the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Legal Vs Ms R C Hazra Memorial Hospital through Its Partner Dr Bikash Hazra

Anup Ranjan Vs Adityapur Municipal Corporation, through Its Administrator