IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 419 of 2023 1. Krishna Kisku, aged about 52 years, son of Late Lakhiram Manjhi 2. Anand Kisku aged about 58 years, son of Late Lakhiram Manjhi 3. Binulal Kisku aged about 66 years, son of Late Lakhiram Manjhi 4. Ravindra Kisku, aged about 47 years, son of Late Nunulal Kisku 5. Santosh Kusku aged about 35 years, son of Late Nunulal Kisku 6. Sandeep Kisku aged about 34 years, son of Late Nunulal Kisku 7. Arbind Kisku aged about 35 years, son of Late Nunulal Kisku 8. Anil Kisku aged about 60 years, son of Late Babu Ram Manjhi 9. Binod Kisku aged about 38 years, son of Late Babu Ram Manjhi 10. Chand Kisku aged about 67 years son of Late Luthu Manjhi 11. Gobind Kisku aged about 54 years son of Late Barku Manjhi 12. Lapsa Kisku aged about 43 years son of Late Thakur Manjhi 13. Smt. Kajoli Kisku @ Kajoli Soren, aged about 40 years wife of Late Mohan Kisku All are residents of Dhariya P.O. ISM, P.S. & District Dhanbad ... ... Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Commissioner North Chhotanagpur Division Hazaribagh P.O. & P.s. & District Hazaribagh. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad P.O., P.S. & District Dhanbad. 4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. & District Dhanbad. 5. Kiran Devi wife of Late Bhim Sen Agrawal, at Dhaiya P.O. I.S.M., P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad. 6. Ajay Agrawal son of Late Bhimsen Agrawal. 7. Vikas Agrawal son of Late Bhim Sen Agrawal Resident of Village Dhaiya P.O. ISM, P.s. & District Dhanbad. … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI For the Appellants : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate For the State : For the Respondents 5 to 7 : Mr. J.K. Pasari, Advocate --- Order No. 10 Dated 08th January, 2025 Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pasari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 5 to 7. None appears on behalf of the State. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2023 of 2022, by which the writ application preferred by the appellants for restoration of the land has been rejected. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has very fairly submitted that so far as the findings recorded at Para-9 of the impugned order dated 15.06.2023 is concerned, it is a fact that the land in question falls within the non-schedule area and therefore he does not dispute such finding. Mr. Sinha submits that he is aggrieved with the subsequent finding which has in fact precluded an opportunity to the appellants to explore any other avenues available under law. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pasari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 5 to 7 has submitted that the appellants have availed each and every remedy available under law and has failed in their endeavour to seek remedy for restoration of the land in question. In view of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and in view of the fact that Mr. Sinha does not dispute the findings recorded at Paragraph-9 of the impugned order dated 15.06.2023, this Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of with a liberty to the appellants to explore any other avenues available under law for redressal of their grievances. This appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned observation. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) MK (ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.) 2|Page