Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Goutam Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2026)

Home
Jharkhand HC
2026
Goutam Kumar Vs the State of JharkhandGoutam Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Disposed¶31

Goutam Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC29 Jan 2026WPC/62/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; W.P.(C) No.62 of 2026; decided 29 January 2026 by Justice Rajesh Kumar (single judge). Petitioner Goutam Kumar versus State of Jharkhand, Deputy Commissioner Godda, Land Acquisition Officer Godda and twelve private respondents (Durbey family members). Prayer to quash Deputy Commissioner's order dated 28.02.2025 rejecting Misc. Petition No.23/2024-25; earlier order dated 11.09.2024 in W.P.(C) No.3769 of 2024 had directed remedy under the Right to Fair Compensation (Transparency in Land Acquisition) Act. Petition withdrawn with liberty to approach appropriate forum; disposed of; no notice to private respondents; pending IAs disposed of. No precedent cases cited; no monetary amounts.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum; no notice to private respondents; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Why is it important?

Learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the present writ petition with a liberty to approach the appropriate Forum. ¶30

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum; no notice to private respondents; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 28.02.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda in Misc. Petition No.23/2024-25 (whereby the Misc. Petition was rejected) should be quashed.

Court's answer

Learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the present writ petition with a liberty to approach the appropriate Forum.

Ratio / Principle

With the aforesaid liberty, the present writ petition is disposed of.

Key takeaways

In view of the disposal, no notice is required to be issued upon the private respondents.ratio¶32
Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition by Goutam Kumar seeking quashing of the order dated 28.02.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda in Misc. Petition No.23/2024-25 whereby the Misc. Petition was rejected (Annexure-07). The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.3769 of 2024, disposed of vide order dated 11.09.2024, wherein paras 5 & 6 recorded that the Dy. Commissioner had rightly passed the order and directed the petitioner to take remedy under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation (Transparency in Land Acquisition) Act. In the present petition, learned counsel sought permission to withdraw with liberty to approach the appropriate Forum; the writ petition was accordingly disposed of with that liberty, no notice was ordered to the private respondents, and pending interlocutory applications stood disposed of. (Rajesh Kumar, J.)

A

2026:JHHC:2237

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.62 of 2026

GOUTAM KUMAR, Aged about 45 years, Son of Late Prayag Durbey, Resident of Village Patwa, P.O.-Motiya, P.S.- Motiya (O.P.), District- Godda, Jharkhand.

…… Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda, District- Godda.

The Land Acquisition Officer, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda, District- Godda.

Dhaneshwar Durbey.

Chandra Shekhar Durbey,

Fuleshwar Durbey. Private respondent no.4 to 6 are sons of Late Ishwar Durbey, Resident of Village- Patwa, P.O.Motiya, P.S.- Motiya (O.P.), District- Godda.

Masomat Rita Devi, wife of Late Jamal Durbey, Resident of Village & Post- Dhanbai, P.S.-Hansdiha, District Dumka.

Murli Durbey, Son of Late Nakul Durbey, Resident of Village Rajabhitta, P.O. & P.S. Rajbhitta, DistrictGodda.

Ghanshyam Durbey, 10. Hare Ram Durbey, Both are sons of Late Nakul Durbey, Resident of Village & Post Kurmichak, P.S. Godda (Muffasil), District- Godda.

Masomat Rita Devi, Wife of Ranesh Durbey, Resident of Godda, P.O. Godda, P.S. Godda (T),. District- Godda.

Ganesh Durbey, Son of Late Arjun Durbey, Resident of Gandhinagar, P.O.- Godda, P.S.-Godda (Town), District- Godda.

Masomat Renu Devi, Wife of Sanjay Durbey, Resident of Village- Patwa, P.O.- Motiya, P.S.-Motiya (O.P.), District- Godda.

Ajay Durbey, Son of Late Arjun Durbey,

Gobind Durbey, Son of Late Duman Durbey, Private Respondent no. 14 & 15 are resident of Gandhinagar, P.O.- Godda, P.S. Godda (Town), District- Godda. …... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

For the Petitioner : Mr. P. K. Choudhary, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Zaid Imam, AC to SC-VII --------

- 1 - W.P.(C) No.62 of 2026

2026:JHHC:2237

02/Dated: 29th January, 2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

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

“ (a) for quashing the order dated 28.02.2025 passed in Misc. petition No.23/2024-25 passed by the Learned Deputy Commissioner, Godda as contained in Annexure-07 Whereby and whereunder the Learned Deputy Commissioner, Godda rejected the Misc. Petition No. 23/2024-25.”

3. The petitioner had earlier moved before this Court in W.P.(C) No.3769 of 2024. The said writ petition has been disposed of vide order dated 11.09.2024 giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. Paragraph Nos.5 & 6 of order dated 11.09.2024 are relevant, which are quoted herein below:-

“5. In view of above, it appears that Dy. Commissioner has rightly passed the order and if any award is there, the petitioner is required to take recourse under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation (Transparency in Land Acquisition) Act.

6. This petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to take remedy under the provisions of the said Act.

4. In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition with a liberty to approach the appropriate Forum.

5. With the aforesaid liberty, the present writ petition is, hereby, disposed of.

6. In view of above order, no notice is required to be issued upon the private respondents.

7. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

29^th January, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/Uploaded on 30.01.2026

- 2 - W.P.(C) No.62 of 2026

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the order dated 28.02.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda in Misc. Petition No.23/2024-25 (whereby the Misc. Petition was rejected) should be quashed.¶26
The court held
Learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the present writ petition with a liberty to approach the appropriate Forum.ratio¶30

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Right to Fair Compensation (Transparency in Land Acquisition) ActRight to Fair Compensation (Transparency in Land Acquisition) Act¶28

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 28.02.2025 in Misc. Petition No.23/2024-25 rejecting the Misc. Petition, contained in Annexure-07¶26
Deputy Commissioner, Godda · 28.02.2025
Prior proceeding
Petitioner had earlier moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.3769 of 2024, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.09.2024 giving liberty to approach the appropriate forum.¶27
Prior proceeding
Paras 5 & 6 of the order dated 11.09.2024 (quoted in this judgment) recorded that the Dy. Commissioner had rightly passed the order and directed the petitioner to take remedy under the provisions of the said Act (Right to Fair Compensation (Transparency in Land Acquisition) Act).¶29

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
GOUTAM KUMAR¶3
P. K. Choudhary
respondent
The State of Jharkhand¶6
Zaid Imam
respondent
The Deputy Commissioner, Godda¶6
Zaid Imam
respondent
The Land Acquisition Officer, Godda¶7
Zaid Imam
respondent
Dhaneshwar Durbey¶8
respondent
Chandra Shekhar Durbey¶9
respondent
Fuleshwar Durbey¶9
respondent
Masomat Rita Devi (wife of Late Jamal Durbey)¶11
respondent
Murli Durbey¶12
respondent
Ghanshyam Durbey¶13
respondent
Hare Ram Durbey¶13
respondent
Masomat Rita Devi (wife of Ranesh Durbey)¶14
respondent
Ganesh Durbey¶15
respondent
Masomat Renu Devi¶16
respondent
Ajay Durbey¶17
respondent
Gobind Durbey¶18

Coram

AI extract

Rajesh Kumarauthor¶19

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Jharkhand HC
Decided on: 29 Jan 2026 · January
Registered: 7 Jan 2026
Case no.: WPC/62/2026
CNR: JHHC010448212025
Topic: Land Acquisition
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
Disposal: Disposed Off
Case type: W.P.(C)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Rajesh Kumar

Dewanti Bharti Vs the State of Jharkhand, through Chief Secretary
28 Jan 2026
Savitri Devi Alias Savitri Pradeep Saha Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand
28 Jan 2026
Ramashish Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand
28 Jan 2026
Shailesh Kumar Jha Vs the Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs
29 Jan 2026
Ramchandra Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand
29 Jan 2026
Rahul Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand
29 Jan 2026

Cite this judgement

Goutam Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand, WPC/62/2026 (JH), decided on 29 January 2026.

The High Court of Jharkhand publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Right to Fair Compensation (Transparency in Land Acquisition) ActRight to Fair Compensation (Transparency in Land Acquisition) Act

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Order dated 28.02.2025 in Misc. Petition No.23/2024-25 rejecting the Misc. Petition, contained in Annexure-07Deputy Commissioner, Godda · 28.02.2025
Petitioner had earlier moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.3769 of 2024, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.09.2024 giving liberty to approach the appropriate forum.
Paras 5 & 6 of the order dated 11.09.2024 (quoted in this judgment) recorded that the Dy. Commissioner had rightly passed the order and directed the petitioner to take remedy under the provisions of the said Act (Right to Fair Compensation (Transparency in Land Acquisition) Act).

View full history

Bench / Coram

Rajesh Kumar

Parties & counsel