2025:JHHC:26783 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.4795 of 2025 .... 1. Loknath Singh, aged about 57 years 2. Arun Kumar Singh, aged about 55 years 3. Tarkeshwar Singh, aged about 52 years 4. Mukesh Kumar Singh, aged about 47 years, all sons of Late Kripal Singh and are residents of loco bazar, Gomoh, PO Gomoh, PS-Topchanchi, District Dhanbad .… Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad 3. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad 4. Circle Officer, Topchanchi, P.O. & P.S. Topchanchi, District-Dhanbad 5. Prabhat Kumar, S/o Late Premchand Ram 6. Yugesh Prasad, S/o Late Braj Kishore 7. Randhir Kishore, S/o Late Raj Kishore 8. Shyam Kishore, S/o late Premchand Ram, all are residents of loco bazar, Gomoh, PO Gomoh, PS Topchanchi, District-Dhanbad .... Respondents .... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K.Sahani, Adv. : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Adv. For the State : Ms. Ruchi Mukti, AC to AAG-IA .... 02/04.09.2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed for following relief:- “For an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for an order or direction for quashing an order dated 04.04.2023 (Annexure-5) passed by the respondent No.3 in Misc. Appeal No.01 of 2022-23 whereby, the order dated 21.07.2014 passed by the respondent No.4 has been set aside and for any order appropriate writ or an order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 2. The description of land is as follow:- “Land measuring a total area of 13 decimal in Plot No.463 under Khata No.123 and over 23 decimals in Plot Nos.464, 466, 468, 469 and 470 under Khata No.12 in Mouza Kheshmi.” 3. It is settled principle of law that the revenue authorities are the service providers not adjudicator. If there is any dispute regarding the right, title and possession over a piece of land that cannot be resolved by the so called noble proceeding termed as a demarcation case. 4. The Learned counsel for the respondents referring to the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.399 of 2023 2025:JHHC:26783 2 W.P.(C) No.4795 of 2025 has pointed out that this proceeding is not as per the law. The relevant paragraph is quoted hereinbelow:- “Para-6- In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge had erred in giving a finding that Circle Officers are having the necessary power and jurisdiction to carry out demarcation of private properties upon filing of an application by one or the other concerned party on payment of requisite fee. It was not necessary for the learned single Judge to give such a finding once the Circle Officer, Deoghar had actually withdrawn the notices issued by him to the petitioners and the learned single Judge also could not have placed reliance on the cabinet decision which contained no such provision conferring any such power to make demarcation of land on the Circle Officer.” 5. Since the revenue authority is not an adjudicator and admittedly there is a dispute between the two private individuals. 6. Accordingly, the order dated 04.04.2023 (Annexure-5) passed by the Respondent No.3 in Misc. Appeal No.01 of 2022-23 whereby the order dated 21.07.2014 passed by the respondent No.4 has been set aside, are declared null and void. 7. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 8. Parties are at liberty to work out their remedy in accordance with law. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Shahid/ uploaded