1 W.P.(C) No. 4249 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4249 of 2021 --- Bikesh Kumar Tiwary son of Late Sonbhadra Tiwary, resident of Mohalla- Redma, Ranchi Road, Near Devi Mandap, P.O. & P.S.- Daltonganj (Medininagar), District- Palamau … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau at Daltonganj 3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Palamau at Daltonganj 4. The Circle Officer, Sadar, Palamau at Daltonganj 5. Sulochna Devi wife of Late Prabhat Kumar Tulsyan 6. Arvind Kumar Tulsyan son of Late Prabhat Kumar Tulsyan 7. Kamlesh Tulsyan son of Late Prabhat Kumar Tulsyan 8. Jyoti Dalmia wife of Sri Binod Dalmia and daughter of Late Prabhat Kumar Tulsyan 9. Vandana Ghosh wife of Sri Kaushik Ghosh and daughter of Late Prabhat Kumar Tulsyan Resp. Nos. 5 to 9 are residents of Bhatti Mohalla, Devi Mandir Road, P.O. & P.S.- Daltonganj (Medininagar), District- Palamau …. … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, Advocate Mr. Kishore Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. Shashank Sourav, A.C. to G.P.-III Order No. 06 Dated: 11.02.2025 The present writ petition has been filed for restraining the respondent nos. 5 to 9 from taking possession of the land appertaining to Khata No. 453, plot no. 501 measuring an area of 0.4 acre, Village- Redma, Ranchi Road and not to disturb the possession of the petitioner over the same. 2. Mr. Shashank Sourav, learned A.C. to G.P.-III appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4, refers to paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the said respondents, which reads as under: “6. That with regard to the statements made in para 04(i) to (iv) of the writ petition, the answering respondents 2 W.P.(C) No. 4249 of 2021 most humbly and respectfully state and submit that the allegation is misconceived and therefore denied. The land for which Land Possession Certificate was applied had been found under peaceful possession of seller and her ancestor with ‘pucca’ boundary wall for more than 50 years till her sale and thereafter under peaceful possession of the purchaser. Objection petition of the petitioner had been heard at length during pendency of Land Possession Certificate. Petitioner had been given adequate opportunity to place his claim with supporting revenue documents but he failed to do so thereafter Land Possession Certificate’s application was allowed. Writ petitioner had opportunity to file appeal before the court of D.C.L.R., Sadar, Medininagar against this order, but he has not filed appeal and directly moved to this Hon’ble Court even after there was alternative remedy to file appeal before the D.C.L.R.” 3. Considering the aforesaid statement made in paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit, particularly that the petitioner has remedy to prefer appeal against the issuance of Land Possession Certificate in favour of the respondent nos. 5 to 9, this Court is not inclined to enter into the merit of the case. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to prefer the appeal in this regard before the court of Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Medininagar. 4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid liberty. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh/