Amit Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Industries

The Bokaro Industrial Area Development Authority through its Managing Director having its office at BIADA Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Balidih, District Bokaro.

¶13

The Director, Project and Land Rehabilitation, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. and P.S. B.S. City, District Bokaro.

¶14

The Special Land Acquisition Officer Bokaro, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. and P.S. B.S. City, District Bokaro.

¶15

The Circle Officer, Chas, P.O. and P.S. Chas, District Bokaro.

¶16

The Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman Cum-Managing Director having office its at Deendayal Urja Bhawan, Vasant Kunj, P.O. and P.S. Basant Kunj, New Delhi. …..Respondent (s)

¶17

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶18

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Adv For the Respondent (s) : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Adv Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Adv Dr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Adv

¶19

08/09.02.2026

¶20

In the instant writ application the petitioners have

¶21

prayed for a direction upon the respondents, especially

¶22

1

¶23

2026:JHHC:6042

¶24

respondent nos. 3 and 7 to immediately and forthwith stop the illegal construction over the land of the petitioners and restrain any unauthorized entry on the land pertaining to Mauza Gorabali, Thana No.-14, Khata No. 66, Plot No. 1/3608, 1/3609 and 1/3611 amounting to total area of 12 acres which is the Khatiyani raiyati land of the petitioners and which has never been acquired by the 3^rd respondent.

¶25

The petitioners have further prayed for a direction to prevent the respondents from disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the property in question.

¶26

The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the Letter No. 50 dated 22.09.2019 issued by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro; wherein the earlier no objection certificate granted contained in letter No. 3208 dated 24.12.2018 has been cancelled without any justification.

¶27

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pladings are that the petitioners are descendants of Khatiyani raiyat Dhanu Singh, having raiyati rights over land situated at Mauza Gorabali, Thana No. 14, Khata No. 66, Plot Nos. 1/3608, 1/3609, and 1/3611, measuring 2.78 acres, 0.76 acres, and 8.46 acres respectively, admeasuring total area of 12 acres.

¶28

2

¶29

2026:JHHC:6042

¶30

The case of the petitioners is that the lands in question were never acquired by the Director, Project and Land Rehabilitation (DPLR), and a No Objection Certificate to this effect was issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro, on 24.12.2018. However, the petitioners were shocked to find that contractors of ONGC, with the assistance of BIADA officials, were operating JCB machines on the petitioners’ land. They made representations before the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro; the Circle Officer, Chas; and the Regional Director, BIADA. The petitioners also informed the authorities about the illegal construction over the lands in question by email to the District Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro; the DIG, Bokaro; the Circle Officer, Bokaro; and the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Jharkhand. Further, the petitioners represented before the Managing Director, ONGC, through speed post and email, but no action has been taken. ONGC officials at Bokaro stated that the land was provided by BIADA and that they were not answerable to the petitioners.

¶31

It has been contended that Respondent No. 7 is carrying out construction work on the petitioners’ lands and has already completed the boundary wall, as evident from photographs of the site and after filing of the present writ

¶32

3

¶33

2026:JHHC:6042

¶34

petition, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro, vide Letter No. 50 dated 22.09.2019, cancelled the earlier “No Objection Certificate” issued vide Letter No. 3208 dated 24.12.2018.

¶35

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 3, wherein it has been submitted that the land made available to BIADA under the aforesaid grant includes the land subsequently allotted to Respondent No. 7, namely ONGC, in the present writ petition. The plots of land allotted to ONGC form part of the larger parcel of land granted to BIADA by the State Government. BIADA, in exercise of its authority, has made allotments out of the said land, including the allotment in favour of ONGC.

¶36

4. It has been further submitted that only the State Government is competent to clarify the acquisition and transfer of land to BIADA under the said grant, as BIADA merely acts upon the land so granted and makes allotments therefrom.

¶37

5. The core grievance of the petitioners is that though the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro has earlier issued a clear certificate giving a categorical statement that the property in question has not been acquired by the Bokaro Industrial Area Development Authority; however,

¶38

4

¶39

2026:JHHC:6042

¶40

just after the order of this Court for filing counter-affidavit, a subsequent letter was issued vide letter no.50 dated 22.09.2019 and by the said letter it has been informed that the property in question which is claimed to be of the owners has already been acquired long before.

¶41

6. The further grievance of the petitioners is that, even assuming that the aforesaid land has been acquired by the BIADA, no compensation has ever been paid to the petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest.

¶42

7. From the record, it appears that a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. In paragraph 10 of the said counter affidavit dated 13.03.2019, it has been categorically stated that the lands belonging to Dhanu Singh, predecessor of the writ petitioners, situated at Mouza-Godabali, Khata No. 66, Plot Nos. 1/3608, 1/3609, and 1/3611, measuring a total area of 12.20 acres, were acquired. A valuation khatiyan was prepared in respect of the said acquired lands, wherein detailed particulars have been mentioned.

¶43

It has been further stated therein that, according to the valuation khatiyan, compensation was shown to have been paid on 31.01.1968. An Award No. 265 was prepared in the names of Bijay Mall Singh, son of Dhanu Singh, and

¶44

5

¶45

2026:JHHC:6042

¶46

Ramnath Singh and Umananth Singh, both sons of Nilkanth Singh, along with others, for a total sum of Rs. 44,274.69. In the margin of the said award, it is recorded as “paid on 31.01.1968.”

¶47

8. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that earlier “No Objection Certificate” was issued in favour of the petitioners; however, the same was subsequently withdrawn by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and as a matter of fact, there is a categorical statement of the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the counter-affidavit filed by him that the compensation has also been made which has been disputed by the petitioners.

¶48

9. Accordingly, it transpires that there is dispute on two issues: -

¶49

(i) Whether the property in question was ever acquired?

¶50

(ii) If the property in question was acquired earlier; then whether proper compensation has been made or not?

¶51

10. To decide these issues, this court is not competent to go into materials facts. Accordingly, the instant application stands disposed of without going into the lis

¶52

6

¶53

2026:JHHC:6042

¶54

between the parties, save and except, granting liberty to the petitioners and other interested parties to raise their grievances before appropriate civil court of competent jurisdiction, which shall decide the matter in accordance with law.

¶55

11. It is made clear that this court has not gone into the merits of this case. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of. Pending I.As. if any also stands disposed of.

¶56

(Deepak Roshan, J)

¶57

09.02.2026

¶58

Amardeep/ Uploaded on 11.03.2026

¶59

7

Amit Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Industries

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

The State of Jharkhand Vs Naval Kishor Singh

The Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi Now General Manager Vs Torish Yadav

Gramin Ekta Manch through Its President Namely Ranjit Sinha Alias Bablu Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjeev Kumar Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Radha Mohan Sharma Vs Education

Shashi Nayak Vs the State of Jharkhand