Ranchi, September 8, 2026: The Jharkhand High Court has rejected a petition seeking the release and return of 2.98 acres of acquired land in Nagri village under Kanke circle in Ranchi district to the original raiyats.
The petition was heard by Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, who held that the land had been acquired through a lawful process in 1957-58. The court noted that an award had subsequently been passed and compensation had been paid.
The court observed that the land could not be returned to the original landholders merely because a portion of it was later used for a different public purpose.
Petitioners failed to establish legal heirship
The petitioners had sought release of land covered by Plot Nos. 2055, 2124, 2068, 2281 and 2882, collectively measuring 2.98 acres.
They claimed that the land had originally been recorded in the names of their ancestors and that they had remained in possession for a long period. They also relied on the regular issuance of revenue receipts in their favour.
However, the High Court found that the petitioners had not produced sufficient documents or a genealogy to establish that they were the lawful legal successors of the original awardees.
The court held that this also provided a basis for declining to interfere in their claim.
Land acquired for Birsa Agricultural College
The petitioners referred to Land Acquisition Case No. 21/1957-58, initiated for the acquisition of approximately 202.07 acres in Nagri village for Birsa Agricultural College, Kanke.
They relied on an order dated December 19, 1968, passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi, as well as a recommendation dated January 31, 1970, from the Commissioner of Chotanagpur Division for release of the land.
Their argument was that the acquired land had not been used for the purpose for which it was originally acquired and should therefore be released and returned to the original raiyats or their successors.
State opposes petition citing delay
The state government opposed the petition, pointing out that the matter had been brought before the court after a delay of nearly 66 years.
The state also argued that the petitioners had failed to establish their status as lawful legal heirs of the original awardee. According to the government, the acquisition proceedings had been completed in accordance with law, an award had been passed and compensation had been paid.
The state relied on documents submitted along with its response and a report of the Circle Officer to support the legality of the acquisition.
Part of land used for other public projects
During the hearing, Birsa Agricultural University informed the court that portions of the acquired land had subsequently been used for other public institutions and projects.
The university stated that part of the land had been provided to the National University of Study and Research in Law (NUSRL), Ranchi, while another portion had been used for construction of the Ranchi Ring Road.
The university had also issued a no-objection certificate for the use of land for another public purpose.
NUSRL informed the court that portions of the acquired land had already been used for construction of university buildings and other facilities. The land had also previously been the subject of judicial proceedings before a division bench.
Court finds no ground to interfere
After examining the case records and submissions from both sides, the High Court noted that the land had been acquired under Land Acquisition Case No. 21/1957-58 and that the petitioners themselves had acknowledged the initiation of the acquisition proceedings.
The court further considered the documents submitted by the state and the Circle Officer’s report, which supported the conclusion that the acquisition had been carried out lawfully.
The court held that once the acquisition process has been completed, an award has been passed and compensation has been paid, a claim to cancel the acquisition and return the land cannot be accepted merely because the land was subsequently used for a different public purpose.
Finding no sufficient ground for judicial intervention, the High Court dismissed the petition seeking return of the 2.98 acres to the original raiyats or their successors.
