KRISHNA KACHHAP AND ORS vs STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:26598
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 4590 of 2014
----
1.(a) Krishna Kachhap
1.(b) Shankar Kachhap
1.(c) Bishnu Kachhap, All sons of late Kuda Oraon
1.(d)Biran Kachhap, wife of late Kuda Oraon
2.(a)Manoj Toppo,
2.(b)Anuj Toppo, All sons of late Mareya Oraon
All residents of Village Nagri, P.O. Bukru (Kanke), PS
Kanke, District Ranchi. …… …. .... Petitioner(s)
-- Versus --
1.State of Jharkhand
2.Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, PO and District Ranchi
3.Director, Birsa Agriculture University, Kanke, Ranchi, At+PO+
PS Kanke, District Ranchi
4.Director, Planning and Development, Birsa Agriculture
University, Kanke, Ranchi At PO +PS+ Kanke, District Ranchi
5.District Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi, PO GPO, District
Ranchi
6.Registrar, National University of Study and Research in Law at
Adre House, Kanke Road, PO and PS Gonda, Ranchi
….. .... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Laxman Kumar, Advocate
For Resp.Nos.1,2 &5 :- Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
[The State of Jharkhand]
Resp.Nos.3 and 4 :- Mr. A. Allam, Senior Advocate
[Birsa Agricultural University]
Resp.Nos.6 :- Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, Advocate
[National University of Study and Research in Law]
----
13 /02.09.2026 Heard Mr. Laxman Kumar, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Manoj Kumar, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent State, Mr. A. Allam, learned
Senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Birsa Agricultural
-1- W.P.(C) No. 4590 of 2014
2026:JHHC:26598
University and Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent- National University of Study
and Research in Law.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
constitution of India for direction upon the respondent to release the
lands from acquisition measuring an area of 2.98 acres comprised
within plot nos. 2055, 2124, 2068, 2281 and 2882 of Khata No. 227,
130, 294, 324 situated at Village-Nagri, P.O.-Bukru (Kanke), P.S.-
Kanke, District-Ranchi which was the subject matter of Land
Acquisition Case No.21 of 1957-58.
3. Mr. Laxman Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners submits that the land measuring an area of
2.98 acres comprised within plot nos. 2055, 2124, 2068, 2281 and
2882 of Khata No. 227, 130, 294, 324 situated at Village-Nagri, P.O.-
Bukru (Kanke), P.S.-Kanke, District-Ranchi was held owned and
possessed by the ancestors of the petitioners which find place in the
R.S. Record of Right. He next submits that the predecessors in
interest of the petitioners remained in possession over the lands so
long alive and the petitioners being the legal heirs and successors
continuing in possession thereof and rent receipts are being issued
by the revenue authorities with respect to the aforementioned lands
acknowledging the possession of petitioners over aforementioned
lands. He next submits that land Acquisition Case No. 21 of 1957-
58 was initiated for acquisition of the land measuring on area of
-2- W.P.(C) No. 4590 of 2014
2026:JHHC:26598
202.07 acres of the said village for Birsa Agriculture College, Kanke,
Ranchi and Notification No. 394 under section 4(1) read with 17(4)
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued by the Govt. of Bihar.
He next submits that pursuant to that, on 19.12.1968 order was
passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi directing the
Requisitioning Authorities to find out another site. He also submits
that by the order dated 13.06.1969 passed by the Land Acquisition
Officer, Ranchi it is evident that certified land acquisition plan of the
land was prepared and a report was called for form the Kanoongo
and reminder was also given. He also submits that the
Commissioner, Chhotanagpur Division, vide his Letter No. 407 dated
31.01.1970 made recommendation for release of the
aforementioned lands.
4. In the aforesaid background, he submits that the land in
question has not been utilized and it was required to be returned to
the raiyats, however, it has not been taken place, however, the
recommendation of the Divisional Commissioner is there and he
next submits that even the compensation has not been paid to the
predecessors of the petitioners and Birsa Agriculture University,
Kanke, Ranchi has not utilized the lands and in that view of the
matter, the land is required to be returned to the petitioners, as
such, proper direction may kindly be issued.
5. Mr. Manoj Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent State submits that the present writ petition
-3- W.P.(C) No. 4590 of 2014
2026:JHHC:26598
itself is suffering from gross delay and laches as the petitioners are
asking for direction upon the respondents to release the land with
respect to the Land Acquisition Case No.21 of 1957-58 whereas the
writ petition has been filed in the year 2014, that is, after lapse of
about 66 years. He also submits that the petitioners herein have not
annexed any chit of paper to substantiate their claim that they are
the successors of the awardees of L.A. case No.21 /1957-58 and he
submits that these are the disputed question of facts and that
cannot be the subject matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. He also submits that the lands having an area of 202.27
acres belonging to various persons were acquired by the state
government vide L.A. Case No.21/57-58 for Birsa Agriculture College
situated at Village Nagri, Kanke, District Ranchi after complying the
provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Award was prepared.
He next submits that although the Divisional Commissioner has
requested to return the land, however, that was not acted upon by
the Government and that letter, cannot be a ground to release the
said land which has already been acquired. He next submits that the
forefathers of the petitioners have received the compensation
amount after the Award was prepared in their names and thereafter
the valuation khatiyan was also prepared which is available in the
records as contained in Annexure-A annexed to the counter affidavit
filed by the respondent State. He also submits that the matter was
verified by the concerned Circle Officer and the Circle Officer has
-4- W.P.(C) No. 4590 of 2014
2026:JHHC:26598
submitted its report vide letter dated 16.04.2022 stating that the
land has been acquired as contained in Annexure-B series. He also
submits that some of the co-sharers of the present petitioners had
preferred W.P.(C) No.2356/2009 for the lands in question and which
has been disposed of by the Division Bench in light of the
observation made therein and liberty was provided to the State to
use all the measures to take possession. In this background, he
submits that after a lapse of 66 years, the present writ petition has
been filed and the disputed question of facts are involved and in
view of that, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. He submits that
Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been considered by
the Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Govt. Of A.P. & Anr vs
Syed Akbar reported in 2005 (1) SCC 558 wherein at paragraph
nos.10 and 11, it has been held as under:
“ 10 . It is neither debated nor disputed as regards the valid
acquisition of the land in question under the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act and the possession of the land had been
taken. By virtue of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the
acquired land has vested absolutely in the Government free from
all encumbrances. Under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act,
Government could withdraw from the acquisition of any land of
which possession has not been taken. In the instant case, even
under Section 48, the Government could not withdraw from
acquisition or to re-convey the said land to the respondent as the
possession of the land had already been taken. The position of
law is well settled. In State of Kerala and Ors. Vs. M. Bhaskaran
Pillai & Anr. [(1997) 5 SCC 432], para 4 of the said judgment
reads:-
-5- W.P.(C) No. 4590 of 2014
2026:JHHC:26598
"4. In view of the admitted position that the land in
question was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 by operation of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition
Act, it stood vested in the State free from all
encumbrances. The question emerges whether the
Government can assign the land to the erstwhile owners?
It is settled law that if the land is acquired for a public
purpose, after the public purpose was achieved, the rest
of the land could be used for any other public purpose. In
case there is not other public purpose for which the land is
needed, then instead of disposal by way of sale to the
erstwhile owner, the land should be put to public auction
and the mount fetched in the public auction can be better
utilised for the public purpose envisaged in the Directive
Principles of the Constitution. In the present case, what
we find is that the executive order is not in consonance
with the provision of the Act and is, therefore, invalid.
Under these circumstances, the Division Bench is well
justified in declaring the executive order as invalid.
Whatever assignment is made, should be for a public
purpose. Otherwise, the land of the Government should
be sold only through the public auctions so that the public
also gets benefited by getting a higher value."
11 . In that case, an extent of 1.94 acres of land was
acquired in 1952 for construction of National Highway and the
construction was completed in 1955 in 80 cents of land and the
balance of land remained unused. The remaining land was
sought to be sold to the land owner at the same rate at
which the compensation was awarded under Section 11. This
again was challenged in the writ petitions. The Government tried
to sustain the action on the basis of the executive order issued
by the Government for permission for alienation of the land. On
these facts, the position of law was made clear in para 4
extracted above. Thus, it is clear that under Section 16 of the
Land Acquisition Act, the acquired land should vest in the State
free from all encumbrances and that any executive order
-6- W.P.(C) No. 4590 of 2014
2026:JHHC:26598
inconsistent with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act was
invalid. Further that if the land is acquired for a public purpose,
after the public purpose was achieved, the rest of the land could
be used for any other public purpose. In our view, this decision
supports the case of the appellants fully.”
6. Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel further submits that if
the land is acquired and that has not been used for particular
purpose, that can be utilized for another purpose and that has been
held in the aforesaid judgment. He also submits that further the
Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Indore development authority v. Manoharlal and Others
reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 has clarified all the aspect in that
judgment, and he refers to paragraph no.366.7 of the said
judgment which is as under:
“366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 act
and as contemplated under section 24(2) is by drawing of
inquest report/ memorandum. Once the award has been passed
on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land
vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2)
of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no
lapse under Section 24(2).”
7. Mr. Kumar, learned counsel submits, in view of above
paragraph of the Full Bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court,
the land cannot be released and the part of the land has already
been handed over to National University of Study and Research in
Law/respondent no.5 and part thereof has been utilized for
construction of Ring Road in the city of Ranchi.
-7- W.P.(C) No. 4590 of 2014
2026:JHHC:26598
8. Mr. A. Allam, the learned Senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent/ Birsa Agriculture University submits that
on enquiry by the University it has been transpired that the said
land has been utilized for construction of Ring road in the city of
Ranchi and part of the land in question has been utilized by National
University of Study and Research in Law. He next submits that Birsa
Agriculture University has already issued No Objection Certificate
regarding the said land to be utilized for another purpose. He also
submits that the Circle Officer, Kanke, Ranchi also wrote a letter
dated 02.08.2011 to the Registrar, National University of Study and
Research in Law, Ranchi that the lands described in a separate chart
in different plot numbers about which the petitioners have
mentioned in the writ petition, those lands are being handed over to
the National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi as
contained in Annexure-D of the counter affidavit filed by the
respondent Birsa Agriculture University. He submits that after lapse
of 66 years, the present writ petition has been filed although the
land was acquired for the purpose of Birsa Agriculture University,
however, now it has been handed over to the National University for
Study and Research in Law and part of the land has been utilized for
construction of Ring Road.
9. Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent no.6/ National University of Study and
Research in Law submits that part of the land in question has been
-8- W.P.(C) No. 4590 of 2014
2026:JHHC:26598
utilized for construction of National University of Study and Research
in Law and the said plots were also a part of the P.I.L before the
Division Bench and in the said P.I.L certain orders have been
passed. He also submits that even there is no averment as to how
these petitioners are said to be descendants of the original
awardees and he also submits that not a single averment has been
made in this regard and even the genealogy is not disclosed in the
writ petition. He also draws the attention of the Court to page 23 of
the writ petition, which is the order of the learned Acquisition Officer
dated 09.12.1968 and submits in view of that from the said order it
transpires that certain awardees have taken the awarded amount
and certain have refused to take the awarded amount and also to
provide the land and in this background, he submits that the writ
petition is fit to be dismissed as there is delay and there is no
admitted facts in the present writ petition and it is not disclosed in
the writ petition as to how these petitioners are the legal heirs/
successors of the original awardees. At this stage, he also submits
that the writ petition may kindly be dismissed. Mr. Sudarshan
Srivastava, the learned counsel further submits that so far as
W.P.(C) No.2356/2009 is concerned, that order was further modified
by the Division Bench by order dated 26.04.2011 and observed that
50% interest has to be paid and it is admissible under section 34 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the interest has to be paid for
the land admissible under section 34 of the Act. He also submits in
-9- W.P.(C) No. 4590 of 2014
2026:JHHC:26598
view of the said modification, it is also fortified that the land has
already been acquired and the persons who have filed proper
petition before the Division Bench, liberty was provided even to take
further interest.
10. In view of above submissions of the learned counsels
appearing on behalf of the parties and after going through the
records, it transpires that plot nos. 2055, 2124, 2068, 2281 and
2882 of Khata No. 227, 130, 294, 324 situated at Village-Nagri, P.O.-
Bukru (Kanke), P.S.-Kanke, District-Ranchi have been acquired under
the Land Acquisition Case No.21/ 1957-58 and this aspect of the
matter has not been denied in the writ petition and the petitioners
have also admitted that the proceeding has been initiated. Further,
in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent State, the documents
are annexed as noted in the argument of Mr. Manoj Kumar, the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State which
clearly suggest that the land has been acquired and that has been
further clarified by the Circle Officer that the land has been acquired
which is contained in Annexure-B series. It has been stated in the
counter affidavit filed by the respondent State that the request of
the learned Commissioner was not adhered to and was not acted
upon and it has come in the counter affidavit of the respondent
Birsa Agriculture University that the said land was acquired for the
purpose of Birsa Agriculture University, however, that was not
utilized by Birsa Agriculture University and Birsa Agriculture
-10- W.P.(C) No. 4590 of 2014
2026:JHHC:26598
University has issued No Objection Certificate (NOC) and thereafter
the part of the land has been handed over to the National University
of Study and Research in Law (NUSRL) and part has been utilized
for construction of Ring Road. The Award has been passed in the
year 1957 whereas the writ petition has been filed in the year 2014.
Section 17(4) has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme court in
the case of Satendra Prasad Jain and others v. State of U.P.
and others , reported in (1993) 4 SCC 369 , wherein, at
paragraphs 14 and 15, it has been held as under:
“14. There are two judgments of this Court which we must note.
In Rajasthan Housing Board v. Shri Kishan [(1993) 2 SCC 84] it
was held that Government could not withdraw from acquisition
under Section 48 once it had taken possession of the land. In Lt.
Governor of H.P. v. Avinash Sharma [(1970) 2 SCC 149 : (1971) 1
SCR 413] it was held that : (SCC p. 152, para 8)
“… after possession has been taken pursuant to a
notification under Section 17(1) the land is vested in
the Government, and the notification cannot be
cancelled under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act,
nor can the notification be withdrawn in exercise of the
powers under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Any other view would enable the State Government to
circumvent the specific provision by relying upon a
general power. When possession of the land is taken
under Section 17(1), the land vests in the Government.
There is no provision by which land statutorily vested in
the Government reverts to the original owner by mere
cancellation of the notification.”
15. Ordinarily, the Government can take possession of the land
proposed to be acquired only after an award of compensation in
respect thereof has been made under Section 11. Upon the taking
-11- W.P.(C) No. 4590 of 2014
2026:JHHC:26598
of possession the land vests in the Government, that is to say, the
owner of the land loses to the Government the title to it. This is
what Section 16 states. The provisions of Section 11-A are
intended to benefit the landowner and ensure that the award is
made within a period of two years from the date of the Section 6
declaration. In the ordinary case, therefore, when Government
fails to make an award within two years of the declaration under
Section 6, the land has still not vested in the Government and its
title remains with the owner, the acquisition proceedings are still
pending and, by virtue of the provisions of Section 11-A, lapse.
When Section 17(1) is applied by reason of urgency, Government
takes possession of the land prior to the making of the award
under Section 11 and thereupon the owner is divested of the title
to the land which is vested in the Government. Section 17(1)
states so in unmistakable terms. Clearly, Section 11-A can have no
application to cases of acquisitions under Section 17 because the
lands have already vested in the Government and there is no
provision in the said Act by which land statutorily vested in the
Government can revert to the owner. ”
11. However, the land in question was not acquired under
section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was acquired
after following due process under section 4 and 5(A) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Award was passed and compensation
has already been paid as the same has been disclosed in the
counter affidavit of the respondent State and it is also fortified in
light of the order dated 19.12.1968 and that is the part of the writ
petition itself.
12. Admittedly, the compensation has been paid and in light
of paragraph nos.366.3 and 366.9 of the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Indore development authority v.
-12- W.P.(C) No. 4590 of 2014
2026:JHHC:26598
Manoharlal and Others (supra) , there is no illegality as the
compensation has already been paid and further in light of Section
366.7 of the said judgment, once the land is acquired, the same
cannot be returned.
13. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of Kerala and others v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai and
another , reported in (1997) 5 SCC 432 that it is settled law that
if the land is acquired for a public purpose, after the public purpose
was achieved, the rest of the land could be used for any other public
purpose. In case, where there is no other public purpose for which
the land is needed, then instead of disposal by way of sale to the
erstwhile owner, the land should be put to public auction and the
amount fetched in the public auction can be better utilized for the
public purpose envisaged in the Directive Principles of the
Constitution.
14. In view of the above reasons and analysis, the
petitioners herein have failed to satisfy the Court that they are the
legal heirs/ successors of the original awardees. In the writ petition,
it has not been disclosed as to how they are the legal heirs/
successors (descendants) of the original awardees and even the
genealogy has not been stated in the annexures as annexed. The
law is well-settled that once the land is acquired, that can be utilized
for the public purpose. The land has been acquired in the year
1957-58 for the use by Birsa Agriculture University, however, it was
-13- W.P.(C) No. 4590 of 2014
2026:JHHC:26598
not utilized by Birsa Agriculture University and the Government has
chosen to provide the part of the land to the National University of
Study and Research in Law (NUSRL), Ranchi and part of the said
land has been utilized for construction of the Ring Road in the city of
Ranchi and further the land in question was the subject matter
before the Division Bench and in the two of the orders, as noted in
the argument of Mr. Manoj Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent State and Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent National
University of Study and Research in Law, further fortify that the land
has been acquired in accordance with law.
15. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court
finds that no case of interference is made out in the present writ
petition, and accordingly, this writ petition being W.P.(C) No.4590 of
2014 is, hereby, dismissed.
16. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of,
accordingly.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated : 02.09.2026
SI/, A.F.R.
Uploaded on: 08.09.2026
-14- W.P.(C) No. 4590 of 2014