Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:16172 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 2811 of 2025 1.Babumani Yadav, S/o Late Jago Mahto, R/o Village- Balthar, P.O. & P.S. Mohanpur, Sub-Division & District- Deoghar. 2.Vidya Devi, W/o Babumani Yadav, R/o Village- Balthar, P.O. & P.S. Mohanpur, Sub-Division & District- Deoghar .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1.State of Jharkhand. 2.Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka. 3.Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar. 4.Superintendent of Police, Deoghar. 5.Sub Divisional Officer cum Sub Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar. 6.Circle Officer, Mohanpur, District- Deoghar. 7.Manruddin Mian, S/o Late Sakur Mian, R/o Village- Balthar, P.O. & P.S. Mohanpur, Sub-Division & District- Deoghar. . .. ... ...Respondent(s) ........... CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. Onkar Nath Tiwary, Advocate For the State : AC to AAG.III Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG.III …... 02/ 18.06.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed for direction upon the respondents especially respondent no.2 to maintain status quo over the Plot No.1173, Jamabandi No.10, Mauza- Balthar measuring an area of 34 decimals in view of pendency of Revenue Misc. Revision Case No.58 of 2025-26. 2. As per the case of the petitioners, the land in question was purchased by father of petitioner no.2. However, the land was settled by private person, Karmali Mian to Ramesh Prasad Yadav by virtue of Kurfa settlement on 14.01.1936 and thereafter he came into settled possession over the land, in question. 3. The eviction proceeding initiated at the instance of Respondent No.7 under Section 20 read with Section 42 of the S.P.T. Act, 1949 and the same was registered as R.E. Case No.39/2013-14 and contested against the petitioner. 4. Against the order of eviction, the petitioners preferred an appeal which was also dismissed vide R.M.A. No.25 of 2021-22. Petitioners challenged the order in appeal before the Revisional Court where the matter is still pending. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:16172 ) 2 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that despite the pendency of the said Revision case, the Court of SDO has proceeded in execution proceeding and issued the notice for eviction. 6. Learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned order. It submitted that the appeal does not operate as stay of the order impugned, therefore, the Respondent No.5 has passed the impugned order. 7. From the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it appears that the said revision case is still pending and it was filed on 27.05.2025. 8. Under the circumstances, Respondent No.2 [Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka] is directed to dispose of the said revision case within eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 9. In the meantime, execution proceeding for eviction is stayed. 10. Writ Petition stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Respondent No.2 [Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka] for compliance at once. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/