Pahalwan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through… — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2026)

Pahalwan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through… — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent Civil Court by filing a suit, and optionally to seek interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, to be considered on its own merits at the earliest.

Issue for consideration

Whether the laying of pipes by L.C.C. Project Ltd. through the petitioners' settled land without acquisition or compensation, causing partial dispossession, warranted redress following the Circle Officer's rejection of their claim. +1 more

Court's answer

Observation that although the petitioners had made complaints, the impugned order shows several opportunities were given to them to appear with necessary documents, which they did not avail.

Ratio / Principle

The matter involves declaration of right, title and interest over the land in question, which cannot be looked into in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Key takeaways

The petitioners were directed to approach the competent Civil Court by filing a suit, and, if so advised, may apply under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which would be considered on its own merits at the earliest.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Civil) No. 4773 of 2026, High Court of Jharkhand (Ananda Sen, J.), decided 07.07.2026. Seven petitioners whose land was settled by the Bihar Bhudan Yagya Committee in 1981 complained that M/s. L.C.C. Project Ltd. was laying pipes through their land under the Palamau Pipeline Project Phase II without acquisition or compensation, pursuant to an order in Letter dated 09.02.2026 (Memo No. 86, Annexure-7) of the Circle Officer, Chhatarpur, Palamau rejecting their claim and directing the company to proceed. Holding that the matter involved declaration of right, title and interest over land, which cannot be examined under Article 226 of the Constitution, and noting that the petitioners had failed to appear with documents despite opportunities, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioners to institute a civil suit and permitting them, if so advised, to seek relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC on its own merits.

( 2026:JHHC:19955 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P (C) No. 4773 of 2026

Pahalwan Singh, aged about 65 years, son of Late Nand Kishore Singh.

Ishwari Ram, aged about 65 years, son of Late Mitru Ram

Shriram, aged about 62 years, son of Late Mitru Ram

Kishore Kumar, aged about 48 years, son of Late Budhan Ram

Prithwi Raj Chandra, aged about 27 years, son of Late Budhan Ram

Rakesh Kumar, aged about 25 years, son of Late Birendra Kumar 7. Anshu Kumar aged about 27 years, son of Late Manoj Kumar All resident of Village Khindra Khurd, P.O. Naudiha Khajuri, P.S. - Chhattarpur, District - Palamau.Jugsalai, Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum.

… Petitioners(s).

Versus

The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District - Ranchi.

The Secretary, Department of Drinking Water & Sanitation, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda, District - Ranchi.

The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, P.O. & P.S. Medininagar, District - Palamau.

The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Chhattarpur, P.O & P.S - Chhattarpur, District - Palamau.

The Circle Officer, Chhattarpur, P.O & P.S - Chhattarpur, District Palamau.

M/s. L.C.C. Project Ltd. through its Managing Director, having its office at 2nd floor, 0, Baralota, Panki Road, Near GLA College, P.O- Baralota, P.S- Daltonganj, Palamu, Jharkhand-822102.

… Respondent(s).

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

For the Petitioners(s) : Mr. Abhinay Kumar, Advocate For the respondent(s) : Mr. Devesh Krishna, S.C. Mines-III

02/07.07.2026:

Heard the parties.

In the instant writ petition, the petitioners are challenging an order contained in Letter dated 09.02.2026 vide Memo No. 86 (Annexure 7

1

( 2026:JHHC:19955 )

of this writ petition) passed by the Circle Officer, Chhatarpur, Palamau.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land in question was settled in favour of the petitioners by Bihar Bhudan Yagya Committee in the year 1981 and the petitioners are possessing the same. It is the grievance that L.C.C. Project Ltd. is laying pipes through the land of the petitioners under the Palamau Pipeline Project Phase II. It is his grievance that without acquiring and without paying any compensation, the pipes are being laid. Thus, the petitioners have been dispossessed from some part of the land in question. Learned counsel further submits that petitioners raised his grievance and has approached the Circle Officer, Chhatarpur, Palamau who rejected the claim of the petitioners and directed the said L.C.C. Project Ltd. to start the work at the earliest.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer.

After going through the impugned order (Annexure-7 of writ petition), I find that though the petitioners had made some complaints but the impugned order clearly suggests that several opportunities were given to them to appear along with the necessary documents but they did not appear and produce documents in their support.

Considering the nature of dispute raised by the parties and the relief sought for, I am of the opinion that the matter involves declaration of right, title and interest over the land in question, which cannot be looked into in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petitioners are thus directed to approach the Civil Court having competent jurisdiction by filing a suit. The petitioners, if so advised, may file an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC which will also be considered on its own merits at the earliest.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

07.07.2026 Rashmi/-

2