Authorities cannot disturb raiyats whose land was not acquired without following due process of law.

The petitioners, residents of Village Hesla, District Ramgarh, claimed to be tribal landholders whose land had been acquired in 1961–62 for construction of the Patratu Thermal Power Station (PTPS), subsequently taken over by NTPC.

They sought rehabilitation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, recalculation of compensation according to the prevailing market value, return of acquired land allegedly not utilised, and employment under the applicable policy.

The State and NTPC contended that the land had already been acquired and compensation paid.

Whether the petitioners were entitled, under Article 226 of the Constitution and the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, to recalculation of compensation, rehabilitation, return of allegedly unused acquired land, and employment benefits?

Whether the High Court could adjudicate the dispute concerning land in Village Hesla that had not been acquired, or whether the petitioners should first approach the competent authorities by way of representation?

Whether the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh should be directed to protect raiyats whose lands had not been acquired from disturbance pending consideration of the petitioners’ claims?

The Court applied the jurisdictional principles governing Article 226 of the Constitution, observing that disputed claims concerning land which had not been acquired could not appropriately be adjudicated in the writ petition.

The petitioners’ claims were also founded on the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, including its provisions relating to compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement.

The Court further applied the principle that a representation should first be submitted to the competent administrative authorities where factual examination and a reasoned determination are required.

The Court noted that the State and NTPC maintained that the relevant land had already been acquired and compensation paid.

Since the principal surviving dispute concerned the remaining land in Village Hesla, which had allegedly not been acquired, the Court held that the matter involved factual and administrative issues unsuitable for direct adjudication under Article 226.

It therefore required the petitioners to submit a fresh representation to the Deputy Commissioners, Ramgarh and Hazaribag.

At the same time, recognising the petitioners’ apprehension regarding further displacement, the Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh not to disturb raiyats whose lands had not been acquired and required the authority to consider the petitioners’ submissions and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

Instead, it disposed of the writ petition with directions that the petitioners file a fresh representation before the concerned authorities within three weeks, and that the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh consider it and pass an appropriate reasoned order within eight weeks thereafter.

The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh was further directed not to disturb raiyats whose lands had not been acquired.

The writ petition and any pending interlocutory application were accordingly disposed of.