IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.1883 of 2003 ------

1(a) Ashok Sao 1(b) Binod Sao 1(c) Manoj Sao

1(d) Kishore Kumar, all sons of Late Laxmi Sao, son of Late Seva Sao, resident of Jaridih Bazar, P.O. Jaridih Bazar, P.S. Gandhi Nagar (Bermo), District Bokaro .... .... …. Petitioners Versus

1. Central Coalfield Limited, a Government of India Company, having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi

2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central Coalfield Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi

3. General Manager (Land and Revenue Department), Central Coalfields Limited, Kargali, District Bokaro

4. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Kargali, District Bokaro 5. Laki Mahto, son of Manu Mahto, resident of Jaridih Bazar, P.O. Jaridih Bazar, P.S. Gandhi Nagar (Bermo), District Bokaro .... .... .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners : Mr. S.N. Das, Advocate For the Res. Nos.1-4 : Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate For the Res. No.5 : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwari, Advocate ------

Order No. 26 / Dated 27.01.2026 Instant writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate writ for payment of compensation in view of land acquired by the respondent Company namely Central Coalfield Limited.

2. It is submitted that on partition, 4.56 decimal of land came in the share jointly in the name of original petitioner- Laxmi Sao and his brother Pyarelal Sao. During course of argument, it is submitted that it is not 4.56 decimal of land rather it is 4.56 acres.

3. Original Petitioner has been substituted by his legal heirs and representatives.

4. The said land was acquired vide Notification No. S.O. 4269 dated 03.09.1985 under the provisions of Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”). As per the provisions of the said Act, the compensation is liable to be paid against the acquisition of land and the original petitioner being aggrieved by non- receipt of either any compensation or any employment in lieu of the acquisition of the land, moved DR & RD Project, Kalgali, but without any final result.

5. It is contended that respondent no.5 has been illegally employed by the Company in lieu of compensation of land in the name of original petitioner. The said employment is contended to be collusive. Earlier W.P. (C) No.1883 of 2003 was allowed vide order dated 26.02.2009 with the following observation: -

“Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, this writ petition is allowed. The appointment of respondent no.5 is quashed and respondent nos.1 – 4 are directed to pay the compensation and also give employment in accordance with the Land Loosers Scheme applicable since the acquisition was of more than two acres. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director is directed to depute the responsible officer to hold an enquiry and fix the responsibility against the officer involved in the illegality setting up respondent no.5 as a bogey to replace the genuine owner of the land whose land was acquired more so when it has been admitted.”

6. Order was assailed in L.P.A. No. 147 of 2009 with L.P.A. No. 197 of 2009 which was disposed of vide order dated 08.11.2017 by which it was remanded to the Single Judge for the reason that order which was earlier passed on 26.02.2009 by the Single Judge, but the original writ petitioner had died and order was passed without substitution. Since substitution petition had already been filed, but in the said substitution petition, there was no formal order, therefore, the Division Bench of this Court remanded the matter giving liberty to the counsel of the writ petitioner to substitute the legal heirs of original writ petitioner- Laxmi Sao.

7. After the said substitution, the matter has been assigned for final hearing and to dispose to this Court.

8. Stand of respondent nos.1 – 4 as taken in supplementary counter affidavit dated 07.10.2021 is that the petitioner is still in possession of the land i