2025:JHHC:25697 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.4598 of 2025 1. Dashrath Munda, aged about 42 years, s/o – Ganesh Munda, resident of Hotwasi, Mahua Toli, Balalong, P.O. & P.S. - Namkum, District – Ranchi. 2. Bittu Runda, aged about 39 years, s/o Late balu Pahan @ Bucha Pahan, resident of Village – Tumbaguttu Khijri, P.O. & P.S – Namkum, District – Ranchi. …… Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. - Ranchi, District – Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner land Reforms, Ranchi, P.O. - GPO, P.S. - Kotwali, District – Ranchi. 4. The Circle Officer, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. - Namkum, District – Ranchi. …... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhishek Sriwastava, Advocate For the Resps.-State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III --------- 02/Dated: 27 th August, 2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The description of land of the petitioners is as follows :- “ Mauza – Tumbaguttu, Thana – namkum, thana No.301, Anchal -Namkum, Khata No.23, Plot No.106, 117, 238, 242, 276, 277, 278, 329, 366, 372, 378, 396, 398, 419, 420, 431, 432, 434, 727, 735, 736, 737, 738, 742, 743, 799, 800, 807, 808, 809, 810, 811, 812, 813, 814, 818, 822, 829, 837, 839, 840, 842, 852, 853, 960, 983, 986, 988, 993, 995, 1011, 1050, 1055, 1056, 1069, 1135, 1164, 1180, 1181, 1194, 1204, 1226, 1287, 1288, 1292, 1308, 1309, 1310, 1324, 1341, 1353, 1360, 1362, 1363, 1365, 1374, 1377, 1396, 1397, 1398, 1401, 1415, 1416, 1418, 1419, 1420, 1495, 1496, 1497, 1498, 1499, 1500, 1510, 1591, 1600, 1628, 1636, 1639, 1641, 1650, 1651, 1652, 1656, 1658, 1680, 1681, 1682, 1699, 1700, 1701, 1702, 1704, 1711, 1715, 1712, - 1 - W.P.C No.4598 of 2025 2025:JHHC:25697 1713, 1717, 1729, 1730, 1734, 1742, 1744, 1745, 1748, 1749, 1752, 1753, 1754, 1758, 1759, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1763, 1764, 1765, 1766, 1767, 1774, 1779, 1775, 1776, 1777, 1778, 1781, 1782, 1786, 1787, 1790, 1791, 1792, 1793, 1794, 1796, 1798, 1799, 1809, 1821, 1826, 1827, 1591/1824, 1323, 825, having a total area of 112.25 Acres.” 3. It appears that the petitioners have approached before the respondents for demarcation , but the same has been denied. 4. It is settled principle of law that the Circle Officer is a service provider and not an adjudicator. If there is no dispute, he is supposed to provide the service on payment of fee. If any dispute is raised, then he is not supposed to enter into the dispute as it will be beyond his jurisdiction and it may amount to trespass also. 5. The law regarding demarcation of land has been settled by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.11.2024, passed in L.P.A. No.399 of 2023. 6. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition is, hereby, disposed of directing the Circle Officer, Namkum to proceed in accordance with law and with a caution that he can go for demarcation only and only if there is no dispute with regard to the said land. If there is any dispute, he is not supposed to demarcate the land. 7. With the above observation and direction, the present writ petition is hereby disposed of. 8. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Ravi-Chandan/- - 2 - W.P.C No.4598 of 2025