2025:JHHC:23738-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 458 of 2023 Prahlad Sah, aged about 65 years, son of Late Prayag Sah, Resident of village and Post Office-Chinadhab, Police Station-Godda (Mufassil), District- Godda. ... ... ... Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, P.O. & P.S.-Dumka, District –Dumka. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, District- Dumka. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda, P.O.-Godda, P.S. Godda (T), District-Godda. 5. The Sub Divisional Officer, Godda, P.O.-Godda, P.S. Godda (T), District-Godda. 6. Sudhanshu Shekhar Pal, son of Late Rishikesh Pal, Resident of Village-Chinadhab, P.O.-Chinadhab, P.S.-Godda (M) District- Godda. 7. 16 Anna Raiyats of Mouza-Chinadhab, represented through its Pradhan, Village-Chinadhab, P.O. Chinadhab, P.S. Godda (M), District-Godda. … … ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar Sahi, Advocate Mr. Akhori Prakhar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Mukul Kumar Singh, AC to GP-III (for the State) Mr. Rajkumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh, Advocate (For the Res. No. 6) --------- 10/Dated: 14.08.2025 1) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2) The parties are ad idem that the writ petition instead of being dismissed ought to have been disposed of, more importantly, in the light of observations contained in paragraph 21 of the impugned order which reads as under: 2025:JHHC:23738-DB “21. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court directs the Deputy Commissioner, Godda to take interest personally in this matter and measure the land in his presence and in presence of the Sub Divisional Officer, Godda and the concerned Circle Officer that how much land has been settled in favour of the petitioner? If it is settled more than 5 acres of land contrary to the Government circular, a choice will be given to the petitioner to remove the encroachment over an area of 0.99 acre of land. If the respondent No.6 Sudhanshu Shekhar Pal has encroached more land of plot No.79, in which Sudhanshu Shekhar Pal has constructed the pond and amalgamated plot No.27 with plot No. 79 without consent of the petitioner or the State, it should be immediately taken over by the State by issuing proper notice to him and the measurement shall be done by a legal procedure initiated against him and the same shall be recovered.” 3) The parties are further ad idem that the writ petitioner/appellant herein was to be granted only five acres of land as per the circular issued by the Government of Bihar and was found to have been in possession of 0.99 acres in excess which was required to be surrendered to the Government. 4) Accordingly, the judgment dated 11.11.2022 passed by the learned writ court allowing the petitioner to retain only 5 acres of land is modified to the extent that in paragraph 25, in place of the word ‘dismissed’, it shall be read as ‘disposed of’. 5) Before parting, it is made clear that in case respondent no. 6 / his legal heirs have encroached more land in plot no. 79 in which he is alleged to have constructed a pond and amalgamated plot no. 27 with plot no. 79 without consent of the 2025:JHHC:23738-DB petitioner then the State shall take action in accordance with the observations made in paragraph 21 as quoted above. 6) Accordingly, this letters patent appeal is disposed of. 7) Interlocutory application if any stands disposed of. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sharda/MM/ Cp.02