Dismissed¶10

Sheetal Kumar Bid v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Feb 2026WPC/5843/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand HC, W.P.(C) 5843/2022, Deepak Roshan J (decided 16/02/2026): land acquisition compensation claim for NH-33 by Sheetal Kumar Bid and Arvind Kumar Bid, successors of Motibala Bid (Plots 490, 491, Mouza Bundu, Ranchi), dismissed. Grounds: disputed question of fact whether land acquired (undecidable in writ jurisdiction); delay and laches (works 2011-12, petition 2022); alternative remedy. NHAI counter affidavit: s.3(d) N.H. Act 1956 declaration withdrawn; widening over pre-existing 45m ROW from 1961-62. Relief under Article 226 refused; liberty to approach competent forum; pending IAs closed.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; petitioners left at liberty to ventilate grievances before the competent forum. ¶10

Sheetal Kumar Bid Vs the State of Jharkhand — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; petitioners left at liberty to ventilate grievances before the competent forum.

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, as successors of Smt. Motibala Bid, are entitled to payment of land acquisition compensation for the portions of Plot Nos. 490 and 491 (Mouza Bundu) claimed to fall under the NH-33 acquisition and to be used by the National Highway. +1 more

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The dispute as to whether acquisition of the petitioners' land has in fact been made is a question of fact that cannot be decided in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.

¶8

Key takeaways

The acquisition or utilization for strengthening of the national highway appears to have been made during 2011-12, whereas the writ petition was filed in 2022; the petition is therefore much belated and hit by the doctrine of delay and laches.ratio¶8
On account of disputed questions of fact, coupled with delay and latches and the availability of an alternative remedy, the Court was not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution.ratio¶9
Notwithstanding the refusal of relief, the petitioner is at liberty to ventilate its grievances before the competent forum, if so advised.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand (Deepak Roshan, J.), W.P.(C) No. 5843 of 2022 — DISMISSED. Two brothers, claiming as successors of Smt. Motibala Bid (who bought the Bundu land by registered sale deed in 1963), sought payment of land acquisition compensation for parts of Plot Nos. 490 and 491 allegedly covered by the gazette notification dated 9.8.2022 and used for NH-33. NHAI's counter affidavit denied any fresh acquisition, stating that the declaration of acquisition u/s 3(d) of the N.H. Act, 1956 was withdrawn and the highway was built over the pre-existing 45-metre ROW acquired in 1961-62. Held: (i) whether acquisition was in fact made is a disputed question of fact not decidable in extraordinary writ jurisdiction; (ii) the 2022 petition over 2011-12 works is barred by delay and laches; (iii) an alternative remedy is available. Accordingly no relief under Article 226 of the Constitution; petitioners at liberty to ventilate grievances before the competent forum. Pending IAs closed.

¶1

2026:JHHC:4375

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 5843 of 2022

¶4

Sheetal Kumar Bid (aged near about 70 years), S/o Late Direndra Nath Bid.

¶5

Arvind Kumar Bid (aged near about 62 years) S/o Late Dhirendra Nath Bid.

¶6

Both permanent resident of Chowk Bazar, Bundu,(Near Kali Mandir, High School Road, Bundu), P.O & P.S. Bundu, District-Ranchi. ..… Petitioner (s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand.

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi at Ranchi Collectoriate, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi. 3. The Additional Collector, Ranchi office at Ranchi Collectoriate, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi.

¶10

The District Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi, Office at Ranchi Collectoriate, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi. ..... Respondent(s)

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶12

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Chandra, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Ms. Swati Shukla, A.C. to AAG-III Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate

¶13

C.A.V. ON: 27/01/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:16/02/2026

¶14

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

2. The petitioners have approached this Court for a decision in the matter of payment of land acquisition compensation amount for construction of NH-33, inasmuch as, the land of the petitioner situated at Mouza – Bundu, Thana No.23, P.S. – Bundu, Sheet No. 2, Plot No. 490, 491, falls under the Gazette notification for acquisition is being utilized by the National Highway.

¶16

¶17

2026:JHHC:4375

¶18

3. The petitioners have claimed that they are the successors of Smt. Motibala Bid, who had purchased the said piece of land through registered sale deed in the year 1963 and part of the land at Plot No. 490, admeasuring 11 decimals and 0.7 decimals at Plot No. 491 is being used by the National Highway. 4. The petitioners in order to buttress their argument had relied upon the gazette notification dated 9.8.2022 and the map enclosed therewith and also the revenue receipt etc.

¶19

5. In this case a Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the National Highway Authority of India denying that part of the land as claimed by the petitioner at Plot No. 490 and 491, which was published in the Gazette of India, had not been acquired. The declaration of acquisition u/s 3(d) of the N.H. Act, 1956 has been subsequently withdrawn, inasmuch as, the present highway has been constructed over the available road itself.

¶20

6. The counsel of the NHAI has also argued that initially in the year 1961-62, land had been acquired for the purposes of the present national highway and the widening of the national highway has been done over the prevalent road of 45 meters width and hence, there had been no acquisition of land for the present national highway. In the counter affidavit the letter of Secretary of Road Construction Dept., Govt. of Jharkhand is annexed, wherein also it has been clarified that ROW of 45

¶21

¶22

2026:JHHC:4375

¶23

meters existed from before since 1961-62.

¶24

7. In sum and substance, the NHAI has been disputing and denying of any further acquisition of land for the purpose of strengthening and widening of the national highway.

¶25

8. The nature of dispute as to whether acquisition has been made or not cannot be decided in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. Furthermore, the acquisition or utilization, if any, for the purposes of strengthening of the national highway as it appears have been made during the period 2011-12 and the writ petition has been filed much belatedly in the year 2022 and hence, is also hit by the doctrine of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner.

¶26

9. Having regards to the above, the claim being of disputed questions of facts; coupled with the delay and latches and alternative remedy available to the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however, the petitioner is at liberty to ventilate its grievances before competent forum, if so advised.

¶27

10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. Pending IAs if any, are closed.

¶28

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶29

Dated:16/02/2026 Amardeep/ N.A.F.R

¶30

Uploaded 18.02.2026

¶31

Sheetal Kumar Bid v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheetal Kumar Bid 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

Ahmad Raza Khan Vs Ruksana Khatoon

Mother Teresa A.N.M Training School through Its Director Prahlad Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand, through Its Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare

Prem Sagar Dubey Vs Union of India And Ors.

Dayal Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anil Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Firoz Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand