THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAMGARH vs JANKI MAHTO

Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:31810)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No. 68 of 2024
Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O.+ P.S. Ramgarh, District
Ramgarh. …. ... Appellant
Versus
1. Janki Mahto, son of Late Kapi Mahto;
2. Shankar Mahto, son of Late Kapi Mahto;
3. Jitu Mahto, son of Late Kapi Mahto;
4. Naresh Mahto, son of Late Hiru Mahto;
5. Harbhajan Mahto, son of Late Rama Mahto;
6. Shailendra Kumar, son of Late Ganesh Mahto;
7. Dashrath Mahto, son of Late Ganesh Mahto;
8. Dinesh Mahto, son of Late Ganesh Mahto;
9. Lakho Devi, wife of Late Rogan Mahto;
All resident of Village Heramdaga, P.O. + P.S. Gola, Thana
No.22, District Hazaribagh, now Ramgarh. …. ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ PRASAD
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA-III
For the Respondents : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate
---------
Reserved on: 09/10/2026 Pronounced on: 30/10/2026
1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned GA-III, appearing on behalf of the
appellant-State and Mr. Jitesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents.

2. This First Appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as “the Act, 1894) by the
appellant-Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh against the judgment and
award dated 23.12.2022 (Award No.03 signed on 12.01.2023)
passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div)-II-cum-Special Judge,
Land Acquisition, Ramgarh to whom a reference was made by the
Collector-cum-Special Land Acquisition Officer, Tenughat Project,
Page 1 of 9 F.A. No. 68 of 2024

Hazaribagh in connection with L.A. Case No.06 of 2001-02
registered as L.R. Case No.142 of 2017.
3. Certain facts of the case, which is in dispute is that the land
measuring an area 0.20 acres appertaining to Village Heramdaga,
P.S. Gola, District Ramgarh was acquired by the State for
construction of Bhairwa Waterfall Project under the Act, 1894 in
L.A. Case No.06 of 2001-02.
4. The District Collector had prepared an award and awarded
compensation of Rs.8526.89/- for the acquired land, which
compensation was received by the landowners. However, some of
the landowners, being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation,
filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894
before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh, seeking
higher compensation. By a common judgment dated 11.07.2008
passed by the leaned Special Judge, Land Acquisition, Hazaribagh
in L.R. Case No.244/2007 to 250/2007, enhanced the compensation
to Rs.8923/- per decimal, which was never challenged by the State
and the same attained finality.
5. Relying upon the said judgment, the present respondents, who were
the applicants before the learned Trial Court also filed an application
for enhancement of their compensation amount in terms of Section
28-A of the Act, 1894 for enhancement of compensation amount in
terms of the award passed by the Special Court, Land Acquisition,
Hazaribagh. At para-3 of the said application, the present
Page 2 of 9 F.A. No. 68 of 2024

respondents had stated to have filed an application under Section 28-
A of the Act, 1894 on 09.08.2008 before the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh within three months from the date
of passing of the award, which was taken on record but the
application was subsequently lost and no proceedings based on the
said application continued. For the sake of convenience, para-3 is
quoted hereinbelow:
“That the applicants L.A. Act 1894 U/s-28A filed on dated
09/08/2008 Spl. Land Acquisition officer H.Bagh within under
three months Accepted by D.L.A.O. Anil Kumar Pandey. But the
head Clerk Nawal Kishor Singh is a very clever man. The
Applicants application is lost by Nawal Kishor Singh (Bada
Babu).”

6. The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, who was the opposite party
therein appeared and filed show cause stating that the compensation
amount was not fit to be enhanced, and it has been stated that the
award prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer was in accordance
with law and did not warrant any interference.
7. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, instead of deciding the matter
in terms of Section 28-A of the Act, 1894 sent the matter to the
Special Land Acquisition Court, Hazaribagh for determination in
terms of Section 18 of the Act, 1894 and, consequently, the
impugned award was passed by the learned Special Court, Land
Acquisition, Hazaribagh.
8. Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned GA-III appearing on behalf of the
appellant-State has submitted that only point for determination
Page 3 of 9 F.A. No. 68 of 2024

before this Court was whether the reference could have been made
under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 or not when the application was
filed under Section 28-A of the Act, 1894 and whether the
proceedings under Section 28-A of the Act, 1894 was barred by
limitation?
9. Section 28-A of the Act, 1894 clearly stipulates that the limitation
for filing an application under Section 28-A is three months while
the present application has been filed after several years of passing
of the award by the Court of competent jurisdiction i.e. the Special
Court, Land Acquisition, Hazaribagh. This alone is the sole point for
determination before this Court, which requires adjudication. In
course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant-State, in all
fairness, has been conceded that other awards were also passed
arising out of same L.A. Case No. 06 of 2001-02 in L.R. Case No.
144 of 2017 (Award No.08 signed on 12.01.2023), against which,
the present appellant had preferred an appeal registered as F.A.
No.70 of 2024 where the only point for determination was the
question of limitation and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has
already decided this matter observing that the application was not
barred by limitation and further observed that even otherwise since
the matter was not decided under Section 28-A of the Act, 1894, this
plea was not available to the appellant at this stage. Since this
question has already decided, nothing remains for adjudication.
Page 4 of 9 F.A. No. 68 of 2024

10. Mr. Jitesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents has submitted that the enhancement of compensation
was made in a reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 based on
which the application under Section 28-A of the Act, 1894 was filed
which ought to have been decided by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer itself, who referred the matter to the Civil Court for
adjudication under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 where also the award
has been passed, hence no interference is required. Enhancement of
compensation has attained finality as the same has not been
challenged and even the applicants, who originally had filed the
application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, have received the
compensation amount. Therefore, prayer is made to dismiss the
appeal.
FINDINGS
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials available on record. The only point for determination is
whether the application filed under Section 28-A of the Act, 1894
was barred by limitation or not?
12. Section 28-A of the Act, 1894 reads as under:
“ 28-A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on
the basis of the award of the Court-(1) Where in an award
under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of
compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector
under section 11, the persons interested in all the other land
covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section
(1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector
may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to
Page 5 of 9 F.A. No. 68 of 2024

the Collector under section 18, by written application to the
Collector within three months from the date of the award of the
Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them
may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of
compensation awarded by the Court;
Provided that in computing the period of three months within
which an application to the Collector shall be made under
this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced
and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall
be excluded.
(2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under
sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all
the persons interested and giving them a reasonable
opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining
the amount of compensation payable to the applicants.
(3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-
section (2) may, by written application to the Collector,
require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the
determination of the Court and the provisions of sections 18
to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they
apply to a reference under section 18.
13. It is not in dispute that the limitation of three months is prescribed
for filing of an application under Section 28-A of the Act, 1894 after
passing of the award in terms of Section 18 of the Act, 1894 made
by similarly situated landowners arising out of the same Land
Acquisition case. The present respondents in their application under
Section 28-A of the Act, 1894 at para 3 as quoted above had
categorically stated to have filed the application under Section 28-A
of the Act, 1894 within the stipulated period of three months. It is
also alleged that the said application was lost by the office of the
Special Land Acquisition Officer. In the show cause given by the
State, there is no reply to these allegations made in para 3 of the
application under Section 28-A of the Act, 1894. The law in terms of
Page 6 of 9 F.A. No. 68 of 2024

Order VIII Rule 3, 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure is settled
that facts should be specifically denied, vague denial is no denial at
all, and facts not denied shall be deemed to have been admitted . In
the facts of the present case, filing no response to the allegations
made by the present respondent at para 3 of their application that
they had originally filed the application under Section 28-A of the
Act, 1894 within the stipulated period of three months, which was
not denied by the State, shall be deemed to have been admitted by
the State and getting such application misplaced or not taking any
action on such application is an inaction by the State, for which, the
State cannot be given any advantage. Thus, plea of bar of limitation
was not available to the appellant-State to be taken in the present
appeal.
14. Apart from that, as already stated that a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in F.A. No.70 of 2024 vide order dated 17.07.2025 has dealt
at length these aspects of the matter. Paragraph No.19 of the said
judgment reads as under:
“19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and
taking into consideration the very purpose of Section 28-A of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as decided by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Kumari (supra) and also
reiterated in the judgment reported in 2024 SCC Online 3685
this court is of the considered view that the claim of the
respondents cannot be said to be barred by limitation when the
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Tenughat at Hazaribagh had
not rejected the petition under Section 28-A. This Court is of the
considered view that the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Tenughat at Hazaribagh at the first instance ought to have
decided the claim made under the said Section 28-A (2) of the
Act and after such determination if the party is aggrieved, the
Page 7 of 9 F.A. No. 68 of 2024

application was to be filed before the Collector for referring the
matter to the court under Section 28-A (3) of the Act. The
competent statutory authority having neither rejected the claim
under Section 28- A on any ground, much less, on the ground of
limitation nor allowed the claim and straightaway referred the
matter to the court and the court took up the matter as a
reference under section 18 and decided the case on merits by
referring to evidences produced on record. Therefore, there
was no occasion for the learned court to hold that the claim of
the respondents made under Section 28-A was barred by
limitation when the authority competent to deal with the petition
under Section 28-A did not reject the same on the ground of
limitation or on any other ground.”
15. In view of the preceding discussions and observations made above,
this Court decides the point for determination formulated above in
favour of the respondents and against the appellant holding that
the plea of limitation is not maintainable and cannot be taken by
the appellant-State .
16. It is pertinent to mention here that vide order dated 03.08.2026, a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has recorded that the respondent
Nos.4 and 11 had died, which was revealed as per order dated
13.06.2025. Name of the legal heirs/ successors of respondent Nos.4
and 11 was also provided as it is apparent from the order dated
10.10.2025 but no steps for substitution of the legal heirs of
respondent Nos.4 and 11 was taken and, as such, the appeal stood
abated against the non-substituted legal heirs/representatives of
respondent Nos.4 and 11.
17. This Court is of the considered view that out of a common award, if
as against some of the respondents the appeal stands abated, and the
award is not severable, then consequently the entire appeal shall be
Page 8 of 9 F.A. No. 68 of 2024

considered to have abated. Partial compliance of an award and
partial modification of the same award qua the co-claimants will not
be permissible and this Court is of the considered view that the
award was a non-severable award as a consequence of which the
appeal in its entirety shall be considered to have abated.
18. In course of arguments, no other contention has been raised by the
appellant-State. However, it is equally significant to mention here
that no other contention was available to the appellant as the
enhancement of compensation in the Original Reference Case under
Section 18 of the Act, 1894, based on which, the application under
Section 28-A of the Act, 1894 was filed, which was never put to
challenge and had attained finality.
19. Under such circumstances, the instant First Appeal is meritless and
the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
20. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, do not survive and stands
disposed of.

(Manoj Prasad, J.)


th
October 30 , 2026
N.A.F.R.
Madhav/-
Uploaded on: 30/10/2026


Page 9 of 9 F.A. No. 68 of 2024