Dismissed¶25

Prayag Sao v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Jun 2026WPC/4214/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand HC writ dismissed: land-loser compensation claim referred to Principal District Judge, Giridih under S.3H(4) National Highways Act 1956 upheld; apportionment dispute evidenced by co-claimant Sakila Khatun (Annexure-A Serial No.3); reference Case No. 878 of 2020-21 (Serial No.15); initial RFCTLARR Act 2013 reference corrected vide Annexure-C Letter No.426 dated 20.06.2024; petitioner directed to establish claim in reference on merits; respondents include DC/DLAO/Circle Officer Giridih and Project Officer NHAI.

What did the court decide?

From Serial No.3 of Annexure-A, the court finds there is in fact some dispute of apportionment, as the name of one Sakila Khatun also appears there. ¶23

Prayag Sao Vs State of Jharkhand — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents acted without basis in referring petitioner's compensation claim to the Principal District Judge, Giridih under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, given the petitioner's assertion that he is the land loser entitled to compensation and that no dispute exists.

¶2

Court's answer

From Serial No.3 of Annexure-A, the court finds there is in fact some dispute of apportionment, as the name of one Sakila Khatun also appears there.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Considering the provision of law and the existence of a dispute regarding apportionment/payment of compensation, it cannot be said that Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act was invoked by the respondent-authority without any basis.

¶25

Key takeaways

Finding no merit in the writ petition, the court dismisses it and directs the petitioner to appear in the reference (Case No. 878 of 2020-21) to establish his claim, which is to be considered on its own merit without prejudice from this order.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No. 4214 of 2020 (Prayag Sao v. State of Jharkhand and others), High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi - Ananda Sen, J. - decided 11.06.2026. The petitioner, described as a 'land looser', objected that the respondents had referred his highway-compensation claim to the Principal District Judge, Giridih under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 'without reasons and without there being any dispute', seeking direct compensation. State counsel submitted that Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit showed a competing claimant, Sakila Khatun, W/o Mansur Alam, who claimed a share of compensation; the reference (numbered Case No. 878 of 2020-21, Serial No.15) had initially been made with reference to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 but was corrected vide Annexure-C, Letter No.426 dated 20.06.2024 and re-referred in terms of Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Examining Serial No.3 of Annexure-A, the court found a genuine dispute of apportionment (Sakila Khatun also appears), concluded that Section 3H(4) had not been invoked without basis, found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it, directing the petitioner to appear in the reference and establish his claim on its own merit without prejudice from this order.

¶1

2026:JHHC:16817

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4214 of 2020

¶3

Prayag Sao, S/o Late Sarju Sao, Resident of Kulgo, PO-Dumri, PSDumri, Dist-Giridih. … … Petitioner(s)

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Jharkhand.

¶6

Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, PO, PS & Dist-Giridih.

¶7

District Land Acquisition Officer, Giridih, PO, PS & Dist-Giridih 4. Project Officer National High Authority of India, Giridih, PO, PS & Dist-Giridih.

¶8

Circle Officer, Giridih, PO, PS & Dist-Giridih.

¶9

… … Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶11

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. J.F. Toppo, GA-V

¶12

Mrs. Sweety Topno, Advocate

¶13

13/ 11^th June, 2026

¶14

1. Heard the parties.

¶15

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is the land looser and thus he is entitled for compensation. The respondents, without reasons and without there being any dispute has referred the matter to the Principal District Judge under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

¶16

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that though initially it was referred under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 but later on since the case is under the National Highways Act, the reference was made under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act. He, by referring to Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit, submits that there was dispute as one Sakila Khatun, W/o Mansur Alam also claimed a share of compensation which prompted the respondents to referred the matter in terms of Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Lastly, he submits that the reference case is numbered as Case No. 878 of 2020-21 before the Principal District Judge, Giridih.

¶17

4. Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 provides that if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or

¶18

Page | 1

¶19

2026:JHHC:16817

¶20

any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute for decision to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction. Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 is

¶21

quoted here under:-

¶22

“(4). If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated.”

¶23

5. From Serial No.3 of Annexure-A, I find that there is some dispute of apportionment, as name of one Sakila Khatun has also appears there.

¶24

6. Though, in the aforesaid documents, reference of provision of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has been made but later on vide Annexure-C, Letter No.426 dated 20.06.2024, the same has been corrected and the matter has been referred in terms of Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act. Serial No.15, reflects the reference of this petitioner which is numbered as 878/2020-21.

¶25

7. Considering the provision of law and the fact that there is some dispute in respect of apportionment / payment of compensation, it cannot be said that without any basis, Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act has been invoked by the respondentauthority. Thus, I find no merit in this writ petition, this writ petition is dismissed .

¶26

8. The petitioner should appear in the reference to establish his claim which should be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

¶27

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶28

S.K.D/CP-2

¶29

Uploaded on 16.06.2026

¶30

11.06.2026

¶31

Page | 2

Prayag Sao v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prayag Sao v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suraj Soren Vs State of Jharkhand

Radhe Shyam Sharma Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd, a Public Sector Undertaking, through Its Chairman

Md. Asifmiyan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashish Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Dwarika Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Revenue

Safruddin Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand