Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23653 (JHR)

POONAM SINHA v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH PR SECRETARY LAND REFORMS AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT

WPC/3700/2020 · 2025-09-15

Rajesh Kumar

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:28194 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.3700 of 2020 1. Poonam Sinha, aged about 53 years, wife of Ram Kumar Sinha, resident of House No. 20, New Barganda, P.O. & P.S. New Barganda, District Giridih (Jharkhand). 2. Sapna Sinha, aged about 47 years, wife of Ritesh Kumar Singh, resident of Behind Carmel School, at Krishna Nagar, P.O. Giridih, P.S. Giridih, District Giridih. …… Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Land Reforms and Revenue Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi (Jharkhand). 2. Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District Giridih (Jharkhand). 3. Additional Collector, Giridih, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District Giridih (Jharkhand). 4. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District Giridih (Jharkhand). 5. Circle Officer, Giridih, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District Giridih (Jharkhand). 6. Ram Lakhan Ram, son of late Loknath Ram, resident of village Pachamba, P.O. & P.S. Pachamba, District Giridih (Jharkhand). 7. M/s Saluja Steel and Power (P) Ltd. through its Amarjeet Singh (Director), having office at Bhandardih, P.O. Bhandardih, P.S. Giridih, Distt. Giridih. …... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Shray Mishra, A.C to A.G. For the Resp. No.7 : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocate --------- 15/Dated: 15 th September, 2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :- “(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ of certiorari, for quashing / setting aside the order dated 17.07.2020 (Annexure- 8) passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy - 1 - W.P.(C) No.3700 of 2020 2025:JHHC:28194 Commissioner, Giridih in Mutation Cancellation Case No. 25/2018-19/2019 (Ram Lakhan Ram Vs. Malti Devi), whereby and whereunder, the Jamabandi running in the name of the petitioners have been cancelled; (ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ of certiorari, for quashing / setting aside the order dated 11.04.2018 (Annexure-6) passed by Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih in Mutation Cancellation Case No. 01 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, the Jamabandi running in the name of the petitioners have been rejected and further directed the office to forward the entire record in connection with Mutation Cancellation Case No. 01 of 2018 before the Additional Collector for taking further necessary action; (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding upon the respondents to accept the rent and issue rent receipt in the name of the petitioner; and (iii)(a) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) for quashing the order dated 28.01.2022 passed by the Circle Officer, Giridih, whereby and whereunder the mutation in the name of the respondent no.6 or his wife has been allowed. (iii)(b) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) upon the respondent authorities for restraining them from issuing rent receipts in favour of the private respondent no.6 or his wife with respect to the property in question in pursuance of the order dated 28.01.2022 during the pendency of the instant writ petition.” 2. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition as there is a civil dispute between the parties being Civil Suit No.02 of 2025, filed by the present writ petitioners. - 2 - W.P.(C) No.3700 of 2020 2025:JHHC:28194 3. The parties are liberty to raise all the pleas in the pending suit. 4. However, it is, hereby, clarified that between the private dispute, the State has no role to play, it is only the civil court which has the jurisdiction. 5. With above observation, the present writ petition as well as I.A. No.353 of 2025 stand dismissed as withdrawn. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 15th September, 2025 Ravi-Chandan/- - 3 - W.P.(C) No.3700 of 2020