2025:JHHC:18467 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 1857 of 2025 ------ Basant Kumar Mahalka, son of Late Durga Prasad Mahalka, resident of Main Road, Latehar, P.O. & P.S. Latehar, District Latehar .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration & Land Reforms, New Auditorium, Ground Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Latehar, P.O. & P.S. Latehar, District Latehar 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Latehar, P.O. & P.S. Latehar, District Latehar 4. The Circle Officer, Latehar, P.O. & P.S. Latehar, District Latehar .... .... .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Imran Beig, Advocate For the State : Mr. Zaid Imam, A.C. to S.C. VII . ------ Order No.02 / Dated : 09.07.2025 Instant writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents for making online entries in Register II of the land of the petitioner appertaining to old Khata No.97, Plot No.3/1117, corresponding to new Khata No.160, Plot No.3, 3/2043, 3/2044, total area 2.70 acres, Mauza Mananchotag, P.S. Latehar, District Latehar. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that Jamabandi of the said land is running in the name of the petitioner which was allowed vide Mutation Case No.378/1977-78. It is further submitted that the land measuring 03 acre 07 decimals was settled in favour of the father of the petitioner, out of which 0.37 acre under Plot No.3/1118 in online entry has been made, but so far 2.70 acre of land under Plot No.3/1117, Khata No.97 is concerned, same is not being done for the reasons best known to the respondent no.4. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that there is absolutely no cloud on title and possession of the petitioner which will be apparent from the fact that it was wrongly recorded as Anabad Bihar Sarkar against which the petitioner preferred Case No.430/1999 under Section 87 of the Chota 2025:JHHC:18467 Nagpur Tenancy Act which was decided in favour of the petitioner and the order has attained finality. A representation to the respondent no.4 in this regard had been submitted by the petitioner on 09.12.2024 (Annexure 3) which has still not been disposed of. 4. Learned counsel on behalf of respondents seeks adjournment for filing counter affidavit. 5. It is strange that when the Jamabandi is running in the name of the petitioner, online entry in Register II, has not been made by the competent authority. This is something which should have been done in due course, but unfortunately, it needs a nudge from this Court in these trivial matters to make the said entries. To cap it all, a representation filed by the petitioner has also not been disposed of. 6. Under the circumstance, respondent no.4 is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 09.12.2024 within two weeks of the order, failing which he/she will be personally liable to pay a cost of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner which will be recoverable as a Money Decree passed by the Civil Court. Writ Petition stands disposed of. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit