Jharkhand HC rules revenue bodies can’t decide land title, asks BCCL to approach civil court in Dhanbad dispute

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 314 | 2026:JHHC:12533

April 27, 2026 : The Jharkhand High Court has declined to interfere with orders passed by revenue authorities in a long-running land dispute involving Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL), while making it clear that questions of ownership must be decided by a competent civil court.

In its order dated April 27, 2026, Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi disposed of a writ petition filed by the General Manager of BCCL’s Govindpur Area. The company had challenged two earlier orders issued by revenue authorities, arguing that those authorities had exceeded their jurisdiction by deciding issues of right, title, and interest over land located in Mouza Sonardih, Dhanbad.

The petitioner also contended that the impugned orders were passed ex parte and without proper opportunity of hearing. However, the State opposed the plea, pointing out that notice had been duly served on the petitioner and that a subsequent application to recall the ex parte order had already been considered and rejected. The appeal filed thereafter was also dismissed on grounds of delay.

During the proceedings, counsel for the private respondent highlighted that the dispute stemmed from land acquisition by BCCL and a related employment claim. It was submitted that earlier directions of the High Court had allowed the authorities to determine possession of the land, which would then form the basis for compensation and employment benefits. The respondent further stated that BCCL had failed to appear before the authority despite receiving notice, leading to the passing of the contested order.

After reviewing the record, the High Court observed that although the revenue authorities had made findings regarding possession, it is a settled legal position that such authorities cannot adjudicate issues of title. At the same time, the Court noted that the petitioner had been given notice but chose not to participate in the proceedings.

Balancing these factors, the Court refrained from quashing the impugned orders. Instead, it granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate civil court for adjudication of title and ownership rights. The Court also clarified that any observations made by the revenue authorities would not prejudice the outcome of such civil proceedings.

Importantly, the bench stated that it had not examined the merits of employment granted to the private respondent, noting that BCCL had provided the job independently in compliance with earlier court directions. With these observations, the writ petition was disposed of.

Case Reference : W.P.(C) No. 1722 of 2011, General Manager vs State of Jharkhand & Others; Counsels: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate; For the Respondent-State: Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, Advocate; For Respondent No. 4: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate.