Sanjay Kumar Hari Vs the State of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:3506

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.456 of 2023

Sanjay Kumar Hari, aged about 35 years, Son of Kishore Hari, Resident of Village-Kandra, P.O Kandra, P.S Mahuda, District Dhanbad

¶5

…. …. Petitioner -Versus-

¶6

1. The State of Jharkhand

¶7

2. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, DistrictDhanbad

¶8

3 . M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited represented through its Chairman-cumManaging Director, office at Koyala Bhawan, P.O. Koyala Nagar, P.S.-Seraidhela, District Dhanbad

¶9

4. The Senior Manager, Mines and Estate, Western Jharia area Moonidih, B.C.C.L., P.O. & P.S Moonidih, District Dhanbad

¶10

5. The Regional Manager, Mines and Estate, West Western Jharia area Moonidih, B.C.C.L., P.O. & P.S. Moonidih, District Dhanbad

¶11

…. …. Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶14

---For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramchander Sahu, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mrs. Omiya Anusha, AC to AAG-IA For the Respondent-BCCL : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv. : Mrs. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Adv. ----

¶15

07/Dated: 10^th February, 2026

¶16

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶18

“(i). For quashing the order dated 03.01.2022 (Annexure-8) containing letter vide Reference No.WJA/MND/Estate /2022-07 issued under the signature of Respondent No.5 whereby and whereunder the representation of the petitioner dated 03.12.2020 submitted in pursuance of the order dated 21.05.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No.1138/2019 has been rejected in a very cryptic and vague manner without assigning any cogent reasoned consideration.

¶19

(ii). For quashing upon the respondents to proceeds forthwith the Crop Compensation as well as employment in liue of acquisition of total area land 5.37 acres situated under different plots at Mouza

¶20

2026:JHHC:3506

¶21

No.324, Khata No.65, 66, 142 which has been acquired under the L.A Case No.4/92-93, L.A Case No.31/82-83 and L.A Case No.10/85-86.”

¶22

3. From perusal of the records, it appears that the land measuring 24.87 acres situated at Mouza-Kandra, Mouza No.324, Khata No.65, 66, 142 relating to total plot in number 114 stood recorded in the name of Pahlan Hari who possessed the same legally and peacefully and Jamabandi has also been opened in his favour. He paid rent to the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and thereafter, rent receipt was issued against him. The respondent No.1 has issued a notice under the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of the land situated at MouzaKandra to different raiyats and Land Acquisition proceedings being L.A Case 4/92-93, L.A Case No.31/82-83 and L.A Case No.10/85-86 were initiated in response of total area 5.37 acres of land has prepared and paid the same to the recorded tenant.

¶23

4. It further appears that the petitioner is now claiming employment as well as crop compensation in lieu of the land acquired by the respondent-BCCL and there is a scheme to this effect also. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1138 of 2019 and the same was disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 21.05.2020, giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation before the respondent-authority and the respondent-authority has been directed to pass a reasoned order. Relevant portion of the said order is quoted herein

¶24

below:-

¶25

“8. Accordingly, the petitioner is at liberty to prefer a fresh representation before the respondent no. 4 agitating his grievance along with supporting documents. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no. 4 shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the said representation. The

¶26

2 W.P.(C) No.456 of 2023

¶27

2026:JHHC:3506

¶28

respondent no. 4 may also consider the issue of delay in making the claim by the petitioner while disposing of his representation.

¶29

9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction.”

¶30

5. The petitioner has approached before the respondent-authority. In compliance of the order, the respondent authorities have passed an order, which has been brought on record by filing this writ petition (Annexure-8), which is

¶31

quoted herein below:-

¶32

Ref No: WJA(MND/Estate/2022/07 Dated: 03/01/2022

¶33

सेवा म७

¶34

संजय कुमार हाड़ी िपता िकशोर हाड़ी ाम काਔ३ा, पो०- रामनगरगढ़ थाना मॽदा, िजला धनबाद, झारखਔ

¶35

िवषयः हाईकोट१ के आदेश के आलोक म७ अिधঁिहत जमीन के बदले म७ नौकरी िदए जाने के संबंध म७। महाशय,

¶36

जैसे की आपको ৯ात है िक वीसीसीएल �ारा अिधঁिहत भूिम 5.37 एकड जमीन आपके पूव१जों से मौजा काਔ३ा मौजा नं० 324. खाता स० 65 Land Acquisition Case No.10/85-86, L.A. Case No 31/1982-83 L.A. Case No.4/1992-93 के तहत पूव१ मुआवजा की पूित१ कर दी गई है।

¶37

आपने जो हाईकोट१ म७ Petition दायर की थी उस पर हाईकोट१ का यह िनण१य था िक दायर यािचका पर िकसी भी ঋकार की िट�णी करने से इंकार िकया गया है।

¶38

पर�ु इस िवषय म७ नया ঋितिनिध� देने को कहा गया था वह भी उिचत ঋमाण पআ तथा द�ावेजों के साथ आपके ঋितिनिध� िबना िकसी नये ঋमाण था, द�ावेजो के िबना िदनांक 25.08 2021 को नया आवेदन / ঋितिनिध� ঋा� ॽआ।

¶39

आपके नए आवेदन पर कोट१ के िनण१य तथा बी०सी०सी०एल के वकील के सलाह पर यह िनण१य पर पॽँचे है िक आपकी अिधঁिहत जमीन जो िक मौजा काਔ३ा, मौजा नं० 324, खाता नं० 65 का कुल रकवा 5.37 एकड़ है। Land Acquisition Case No. 10/85-86, L.A. Case No.31/1982-83 और L.A. Case No. 4/1992-93 के अ�ग१त कुल और फाइनल मुआवजा का भुगतान समाधान हो चुका है, िजसके प�ात् कोई भूिम हारने वाला और उनके वंशज िकसी भी ঋकार के कोई मुआवजा के हकदार नहीं हो सकते है। इस िवषय म७ ही जारी अ�ादेश Personnel Directorate M/S BCCL Koyla Bhawna, Dhanhad ref. no.BCCL/PA-II/CF (LA) Gen 1/90/13417-597 dated 22.9.1990/(25.09.1990) भी यही ��ीकरण करता है।

¶40

अत. आप इस अिधঁिहत जमीन पर मुआवजा तथा िनयोजन कोई भी हक नहीं हो पाता है। इसिलए आपका दावा खाौरज िकया जा रहा है।

¶41

6. From mere perusal of the impugned order, it appears that it is an unreasoned order and it has been passed making reference of the Court’s order

¶42

and advice of the Advocate. The Court’s order does not disclose any such thing.

¶43

3 W.P.(C) No.456 of 2023

¶44

2026:JHHC:3506

¶45

The advice of the Advocate has not been discussed in the impugned order and therefore, the impugned order is totally unreasoned.

¶46

7. A claim cannot be rejected in such a summary manner without assigning any reason. The reason is a soul of any order which decides the claim of one and other person.

¶47

8. It is also settled principle of law that the reason cannot be supplied by filing counter affidavit.

¶48

9. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 03.01.2022 (Annexure-8) issued by the respondent No.5 i.e, the Regional Manager, Mines and Estate, West Western Jharia, B.C.C.L, Dhanbad is hereby quashed and setaside.

¶49

10. However, the petitioner is permitted to file afresh representation before the concerned authority bringing on record the entire factual matrix and the concerned authorities are directed to pass a reasoned order after giving due opportunity to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶50

11. With the above observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶51

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶52

10^th February, 2026 Raja/- Uploaded on 13.02.2026

Sanjay Kumar Hari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Hari 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

Saif Ali Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Rekha Roy Vs the Secretary Jharkhand Public Service Commission

Sheopati Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner

Dineshwar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

S.P.G Mission High School, Chaibasa,Thro Its Secretary, Arun Barwa Vs the State of Jharkhand Thro the Secretary, Dept. of Revenue and Land Reforms

Pankaj Kumar Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand