IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3399 of 2024 Malti Devi, W/o Banu Sahu, R/o Village-Baraik Mohalla, PO & PS- Gumla, District-Gumla … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Ranchi 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Gumla 4. The Superintendent of Police, Gumla 5. The Officer-in-charge, Gumla Police Station, Gumla 6. Raj Kumar Singh, S/o Late Deomuni, R/o Village-Baraik Mohalla, PO & PS-Gumla, District-Gumla 7. Sanjay Singh, S/o Late Deomuni, R/o Village-Baraik Mohalla, PO & PS-Gumla, District-Gumla … … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mrs. Manju Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : Mr. Ankit Kumar, AC to SC-I ----- 06/06.03.2025 The present writ petition has been filed for directing the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to open the gates of her property appertaining to Khata No. 430, Plot No. 696, District-Gumla, measuring an area of 0.9 decimal which solely belongs to her. Further prayer has been made for calling upon the respondents as to why an appropriate proceeding be not initiated against them for illegally restraining the petitioner from enjoying the property in question. The petitioner has also prayed for directing the respondents to pay suitable compensation to her for not protecting the building materials kept by her over the said land. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Title Suit No. 2/1998 filed by Vishwanath Singh and others against the petitioner and others was dismissed by the Civil Court, Gumla. Aggrieved with the judgment passed in the said suit, Title Appeal No. 20/2009 was filed by Vishwanath Singh and others in the court 2 W.P.(C). No. 3399 of 2024 of Principal District Judge, Gumla which was dismissed for default on 16.03.2012. Though it was subsequently restored vide order dated 28.04.2014, however, the same again got abated and was dismissed vide order dated 25.03.2015. Hence, the petitioner has the lawful right and title over the said land. 3. Mr. Ankit Kumar, AC to SC-I appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 5, refers to paragraph no. 11 of the counter affidavit dated 20.08.2024 filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3, which reads as under: “11. That it is humbly stated and submitted that in reply to the statement made in paragraph no. 5 of the writ petition that the same is a matter of fact and document which requires proofs according to law. It is further humbly stated and submitted that the respondent authority, C.O, Gumla, Circle Amin, Gumla, Revenue Officer, Gumla, Officer-in-charge and S.D.O, Gumla together measured the land dated 18.08.2022 under Khata No. 430, Plot Nos. 695 and 696, total area 0.19 acre and prepared a map of land in question and found that the petitioner is in possession of about 0.17 ½ acre and 1 ½ (one and half) decimal land which is disputed land between both the parties i.e., the petitioner and the respondent nos. 6 and 7. In view of the controversy, the land has been fenced from all sides to maintain peace and order. A joint enquiry report is submitted by S.D.O, Gumla, C.O, Gumla and Officer-in- charge, Gumla dated 17.08.2022. A case U/s 144 Cr.P.C was also running in the court of S.D.O, Gumla vide M. Case No. 471/2022 and same is disposed of in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner wants possession over the land in question through District Administration, but the same is a matter of civil jurisdiction. Under the above circumstance, the demand of the petitioner is baseless.” 4. Having considered the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the statement made at paragraph no. 11 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3, this Court is of the view that the State 3 W.P.(C). No. 3399 of 2024 authorities have already taken steps as required under law with respect to the dispute over part of the land in question between the petitioner and the respondent nos. 6 and 7. Though the suit filed by Vishwanath Singh and others against the petitioner and others for the land in question has been dismissed and the appeal preferred against the judgment passed in the title suit has also been dismissed by the appellate court, yet so far as the possession over the disputed part of the land is concerned, the administrative authorities have their limitation as they cannot exercise the power of civil court so as to ensure the possession of said part of the land in favour of the petitioner which can only be done through the process of court. 5. Hence, I see no reason to entertain the prayer made in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 6. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse before the competent court of civil jurisdiction for redressal of her grievance. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish