1 W.P.(Cr.) No. 506 of 2024 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:21660 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) No. 506 of 2024 1. Jitesh Kumar Soni; 2. Nitesh Kumar Soni; Both sons of Late Dinesh Prasad Soni, resident of Shivam Apartment, 1st Floor, 1/D, Harmu Road, PS: Kotwali, PO: Doranda, District: Ranchi. ... Petitioners Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through the Director General of Police, Ranchi, HEC, PO & PS: Dhurwa, District: Ranchi; 2. Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, HEC, PO & PS: Dhurwa, District: Ranchi; 3. Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, PO: GPO, PS: Kotwali, District: Ranchi; 4. Officer Incharge, Argora Police Station, Ranchi, PO: Doranda, PS: Argora, District: Ranchi; 5. Abhishek Kumar, Assistant Sub Inspector, Argora Police Station, Ranchi, PO: Doranda, PS: Argora, District: Ranchi; 6. Superintendent of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Ranchi, Lal Kothi, PO & PS: Doranda, District: Ranchi; 7. Mahendra Soni, son of Late Prayag Soni; 8. Amit Kumar, son of Sri Mahendra Soni; Nos. 7 & 8 resident of 488, Harmu Road, Near Bridge, Saket Vihar, Harmu, PO: Doranda, PS: Harmu, District: Ranchi. … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate; Mr. Amrendra Pradhan, Advocate For the State : AC to AAG-II For the R-7 & 8 : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Jyoti Pd. Sinha, Advocate For the R-5 : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Saket Upadhyay, Advocate --- 13/ 20.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel for the respective sides. 2. In this writ application, the petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to show-cause as to under what circumstances they have failed to protect the petitioners from the offence being committed upon them, including illegal obstruction and infringement of their fundamental rights in the presence of police. The 2 W.P.(Cr.) No. 506 of 2024 concerned respondents may also be directed to show-cause as to why till date the police had not initiated criminal prosecution against the law violators when the entire illegal action took place on 16.06.2024. The petitioners have also prayed for being suitably compensated and the police be directed to refrain from causing dispossession of the validly purchased land of the petitioners vide registered sale deed no. 9896/8890. Further prayer which has been made by the petitioners is to direct the respondents to immediately restore status quo ante of the petitioners if the petitioners are dispossessed or found dispossessed from their validly purchased land. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they had validly and legally purchased a piece of land measuring 6.25 decimals situated in Plot No. 1972/Part, under Khata No.40, situated at village: Argora, PS: Argora, , P.S. No. 207, Ward No.28 (New Ward No.25), District: Ranchi vide registered sale deed no. 9896/8890 dated 12.12.2021 from its lawful owner Abdul Raif Khan, Munazir and Mazbool Ahmad. Pursuant to having validly purchased the said land the petitioners had come in peaceful and absolute possession of the same and they accordingly constructed a boundary wall and installed an iron gate for entry/ exit. The other necessities were also done and for ensuring safety and security a CCTV camera was also installed. The private respondent nos. 7 & 8 claimed the same plot of land though they had purchased a piece of land measuring 5.80 decimals in Sub Plot No.10, Plot No. 1972, under Khata No.40, situated at village: Argora, PS: Argora, PS No.207, Ward No.29, District: Ranchi vide registered sale deed no.3776/3480 dated 07.07.2020 from the erstwhile owner Smt. Manju Shekhar. It has been stated that the vendors of the petitioners had filed a case before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi vide Case No. M-2095/2020 against the private respondents, their vendors and Vikas Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti with regard to Sub Plot No.1972A, Plot No. 1972, under Khata No.40, area 3 Khatta with a prayer to initiate proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi vide order dated 04.01.2021 had observed that the dispute pertains to demarcation of land which can be resolved by getting the land demarcated by the Anchal Amin. The respondent no.7 had also filed a case before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi vide Case No.M-1265/2022 for initiating a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. in which vide order dated 23.07.2022 it was observed that the dispute pertains to title over the land which cannot be decided in the said proceeding. The order records that as per the report of the Circle Officer the possession of the 1st party appears. It has been 3 W.P.(Cr.) No. 506 of 2024 stated that ultimately the Circle Officer, Argora vide order dated 20.03.2022 allowed mutation in favour of the petitioners vide Mutation Case No. 1879 R 27/2021-22. The respondent no.7 had preferred Mutation Appeal Case No.120 R 15/2022-23 which stood allowed vide order dated 23.09.2022 whereby the mutation order dated 20.03.2022 was set aside. Being aggrieved, the petitioners had filed Mutation Revision Case No. 56 R 15/2022-23 challenging the appellate order dated 23.09.2022 passed in Mutation Appeal Case No. 120 R 15/2022-23. The revision stood disposed of vide order dated 06.06.2024 affirming the order dated 23.09.2022. The revisional order had unequivocally observed that there is a dispute regarding the title, interest and possession over the land which can be decided by the competent Court. On 16.06.2024 the private respondents in order to illegally disposes the petitioners from their validly purchased land had forcibly taken away the DVR of CCTV installed and though the matter was reported to Argora PS but the police had abused the petitioner no.2 and asked him to vacate the land. The concerned ASI had also refused to register an FIR regarding the theft of DVR of CCTV. 4. It has been submitted by Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had validly purchased the piece of land from which they have been dispossessed by the respondent nos.7 & 8 in active connivance of the police officials. Despite making a complaint to the police regarding the theft of DVR of CCTV by the respondent nos. 7 & 8 the police had not registered a First Information Report which once again indicates that the police are hand in gloves with the respondent nos. 7 & 8. 5. Learned AC to AAG-II and the learned senior counsels for the respondent nos. 5, 7 & 8 have submitted that the entire grievance of the petitioners is related to the title of the land in which the respondent nos. 7 & 8 have already constructed a house and are in occupation thereof. It has been submitted that the only remedy available to the petitioners is to approach the Civil Court for redressal of their grievance. 6. During the pendency of this writ application, submission was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the reports submitted by the Anchal Amin dated 29.08.2025 concluded that after verifying the Kewalas of the petitioners as well as the respondent nos. 7 & 8, the lands could not be located and accordingly, vide order dated 09.04.2026 the LRDC, Ranchi was directed to remain physically present on 27.04.2026 to explain the said ambiguity. The LRDC, Ranchi on 4 W.P.(Cr.) No. 506 of 2024 27.04.2026 had stated that he had conducted an enquiry with respect to the disputed land and he was accordingly directed to file a supplementary counter-affidavit. The supplementary counter-affidavit which has been filed reveals about an inspection carried out on the land by the Circle Officer, Argora, Revenue Sub Inspector-cum-Circle Inspector and Anchal Amin jointly and it is revealed that the land was recorded in the name of Abdul Raif Khan and from him Vikas Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti had purchased 3.50 acres in the year 1986 and thereafter the Society had developed the land. The Society had allotted Plot No. 10/C measuring 5.80 decimals to one of its members Manju Devi and her name was mutated vide Mutation Case No. 136 R 27/1986-87 and the jamabandi was created at Volume 25, Page No.147 in Register-II. The said land was transferred by Manju Devi to Mahendra Kumar Soni (respondent no.7) vide deed no. 3480 dated 07.07.2020 and the land was mutated in the name of Mahendra Kumar Soni in Registrar-II vide Mutation Case No.441 R 27/2020-21. It has been stated that on field inspection it was found that a house has been constructed by Mahendra Kumar Soni over the land in question. The family members of the khatiyani raiyat had once again sold the land in question measuring 6.25 decimals to the petitioner no.2 vide sale deed no. 8890 dated 13.12.2021 and the name of the petitioner no.2 was mutated vide Mutation Case No. 1879 R 27/2021-22. However, the mutation in the name of the petitioner no.2 was cancelled by the LRDC, Ranchi in Mutation Appeal Case No. 120 R 15/2022-23. It has further been revealed in course of inspection that the plot of land purchased by the respondent no.7 and the petitioner no.2 is the same piece of land which is in possession of the respondent no.7 who has already constructed a house and residing on the same. 7. Though various affidavits have been filed by the petitioners and the private respondents in support of their claim of ownership with respect to the land in question but as would be apparent and strengthened by virtue of the averments made in the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the State there is a dispute between the petitioners and the private respondents and such disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in a writ jurisdiction. 8. Thus, on consideration of the entire aspects of the case, I do not find any reason to accede to the various prayers made in this writ application and consequently, this writ application stands disposed of 5 W.P.(Cr.) No. 506 of 2024 with a liberty to the petitioners to explore other avenues for redressal of their grievance as adorned by law. 9. Pending I.A, if any, stands closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, Dated: 20.07.2026 S.B. Uploaded on 22.07.2026