IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(PIL) No. 4736 of 2018 ---------

Jyoti Sharma … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and Ors. … … Respondents With W.P.(PIL) No. 519 of 2020 ---------

Court on its Own Motion Versus The State of Jharkhand and Ors. … … Respondents With W.P.(PIL) No. 131 of 2020 ---------

Court on its Own Motion Versus The State of Jharkhand and Ors. … … Respondents ---------

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ----------

Amicus Curiae : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Kashish Tiwary, Advocate For the Intervenor : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate Mr. Deepak Kr. Dubey, Advocate Ms. Rashi Sharma, Advocate [W.P.(PIL) No. 4736 of 2018]

For the State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. SC-I Mr. Abhijeet Anand, AC to Sr. SC-I For the RIMS : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate Mr. Sharon Toppo, Advocate For the JSBCCL : Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, Advocate -----------

42/Dated: 11^th December, 2025 I.A. No. 16363 of 2025; I.A. No. 16632 of 2025; I.A. No. 16662 of 2025; I.A. No. 16666 of 2025; I.A. No. 16667 of 2025; I.A. No. 16669 of 2025; I.A. No. 16674 of 2025; I.A. No. 16675 of 2025; I.A. No. 16673 of 2025; I.A. No.

16670 of 2025; I.A. No. 16671 of 2025; I.A. No. 16665 of 2025.

1. The instant interlocutory applications have been filed by the applicants praying therein to be added as a party respondent in this public interest litigation in the pretext of the order dated 03.12.2025 passed by this Court to remove the encroachment within 72 hours from the land which has been acquired by the RIMS.

2. The instant interlocutory applications have been filed by different persons being represented by Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel by taking the following grounds:

(i) It has been prayed to pass positive order as prayed in these interlocutory applications;

(ii) It has been contended that the applicants are the original owner of the landed property purchased inside the acquired land for the RIMS and in order to support his argument, the documents like the sale deed; non-incumbrance certificate; revenue receipts and sanction of the map have been appended on behalf of one or the other applicants.

(iii) It has been submitted that the aforesaid documents do establish the title over the land in question and as such, removing the applicants from the property in question cannot be said to be justified as per the encroachment drive undertaken in pursuance of the order dated

03.12.2025.

(iv) Learned senior counsel has also taken the ground that the case is only of declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as such, the same cannot be considered to be the acquisition in the eyes of law.

3. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned AAG-II has submitted on the strength of the land record pertaining to the land acquisition that the lands have been acquired in pursuance of the land acquisition proceeding being Land Acquisition Case No. 76 of 1964-65 and the compensation has already been paid in favour of the predecessor in interest of one or the other applicants.

4. It has been contended by referring to the map of the acquired land that all the lands which are being claimed by way of title by one or the other applicants is in the middle/periphery of the acquired land for the purpose of establishment of RIMS and as such, merely because the documents have been issued by the revenue authorities, the applicants cannot have any claim over the land in question that too in the acquired land of a Medical Institute which is also a College and further hostel had also been constructed where girl students reside.

5. It has also been contended that the amount of compensation since has already been paid as per the original record available and as such, the claim of one or the other applicants is not fit to be considered.

6. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned AAG-II has submitted that even accepting that the possession of the land in que