IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 280 of 2023 --- Md. Maqsood Ansari @ Md. Maksud Ansari (Age about 78 years) S/o Md. Ahmed Ansari resident of House No. 22, Ward No. 01, Mohalla-Lakhna, Madhupur, P.O & P.S.-Madhupur, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand). .....Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand). 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O & P.S.- Deoghar, District Deoghar (Jharkhand). 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Madhupur, P.O & P.S.-Madhupur, District-Deoghar (Jharkhand). 4. The Circle Officer, Madhupur, P.O & P.S.-Madhupur, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand). 5. Sarfraz Ahmed S/o Late Md. Anwar resident of Khalasi Mohalla, Madhupur, P.O & P.S.- Madhupur, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand). .....Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --- For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, A.C. to AAG-II --- 12/ Dated: 25.03.2025 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. The appellant has previously approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 508 of 2021 contending that his representation dated 27.08.2020 to provide Police-Aid for erection of a boundary wall over his land is pending before the Sub Divisional Officer, Madhupur, District-Deoghar, and that the latter is not taking any action. The said writ petition was disposed of on 01.03.2021 by this Court directing the Sub Divisional Officer, Madhupur, District Deoghar, to dispose of the said application after hearing not only the appellant but also any other concerned person within one month. Thereafter, the Sub Divisional Officer did nothing, but the Circle Officer passed an order on 23.11.2021 stating that petitioner had no right in the subject land thereby usurping the powers of the Civil Court to determine title to the party which admittedly the Circle Officer, Madhupur never had. On the basis of the said decision Annexure-5, which is a copy of Register-II has been issued by the Circle Officer deleting the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. Though, this order dated 23.11.2021 was challenged before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge did not deal with the said aspect and observed that because there is a dispute regarding title and possession to the subject land between the appellant and the 5th respondent, only Civil Court can decide it and thus dismissed the writ petition. 3. To the extent, the learned Single Judge had not granted relief to the appellant by setting aside the order of the Circle Officer, Madhupur on 23.11.2021, the learned Single Judge clearly erred, as the legal position is clear that the Circle Officer, Madhupur could not have decided title to the subject land. 4. Therefore, the order dated 23.11.2021 of the Circle Officer, Madhupur and the consequential entry made in the copy of Register-II on 03.11.2022 by the Circle Officer are both set aside. 5. As regards the issue of providing police protection, since there is a dispute between the appellant and the 5th respondent on both the aspects of title and possession, granting liberty to the appellant to seek appropriate relief in the Civil Court for protecting his alleged possession to the subject property and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions of both the parties, this L.P.A. is partly allowed as above. (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) jk/vikas