2025:JHHC:27560-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.128 of 2025 ----- Saraswati Devi, wife of Baldeo Prasad, resident of Shastri Nagar, P.O. Giridih, P.S. Giridih (Town), District-Giridih. .......... Appellant. -Versus- 1. Satish Kumar Kejriwal, son of Late Krishna Kumar Kejriwal. 2. Ajay Kumar Kejriwal, son of Late Krishna Kumar Kejriwal. Both are resident of village Babhan Toli, P.O. Giridih, P.S. Giridih (Town), District Giridih, Jharkhand 3. The State of Jharkhand. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih. 5. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Giridih. 6. The Circle Officer, Giridih. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate For the Res. Nos.1&2: Mr. R.N. Sahay, Sr. Advocate Mr. Yashvardhan, Advocate For the Res. Nos.3-6: A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II ----- Order No.03 Date: 10.09.2025 I.A. No.11565 of 2024: 1. For the reasons stated in the application, we find sufficient cause to condone the delay of 106 days that has crept up in filing of the appeal. 2. Ordered accordingly. 3. I.A. No.11565 of 2024 is disposed of. L.P.A. No.128 of 2025: 4. The respondent nos.1 and 2, who were the writ-petitioners, approached the Writ Court for grant of following reliefs :- “(i). To quash and set aside the Order dated 28.01.2022 (Annexure-5) passed by Learned Deputy Commissioner, Giridih (Respondent No. 2) in Mutation Revision Case No. 11/2016 who 2025:JHHC:27560-DB 2 upheld the order dated 26.09.2015 passed by LRDC, Giridih in Mutation Appeal Case No. 09/2015-16 and to further quash and set aside the order passed in Mutation Appeal Case No. 09/2015- 16 dated 26.09.2015 (Annexure-4) passed by Land Reforms Deputy Commissioner, Giridih in which the Order of Circle Officer, Giridih dated 25.03.2015 passed in Mutation Case No. 2071/2014- 15 has been quashed and set-aside and further the Circle Officer, Giridih has been directed to cancel the jamabandi running in the name of instant petitioners in relation to the land in question having Anchal- Giridih, Mauja- Mangrodih, Thana No. 233, Khata No. 58, Plot No. 694, Area- 19.35. (ii) Further be pleased to stay the operation of Order dated 28.01.2022 (Annexure-5) passed by Learned Deputy Commissioner, Giridih (Respondent No. 2) in Mutation Revision Case No. 11/2016.” 5. The petitioner had claimed title and mutation of the land on the following basis :- ”(i) Through registered sale deed dated 17.09.1912, the land in question has been purchased by Thomas Henry Ward from Raja Neelkanth Narayan Singh. On the strength of said sale deed, the land in question has been mutated in the name of the father of the vendor of the petitioners. It appears that w.e.f. 01.01.1979, right of the land has been acquired by the Superintendent of Police, Giridih on payment of rent from vendor of the petitioner namely, Rajesh Agarwala. (ii) Through registered sale deed dated 15.03.2011, present writ petitioners have purchased the land from Rajesh Agarwala. 2025:JHHC:27560-DB 3 It further appears that mutation has been accordingly acted upon in pursuance of Mutation Case No. 1906 of 2011-12. Thereafter, rent receipt has also been issued in favour of the petitioners.” 6. It is not in dispute that it was against the mutation, ordered in favour of the appellant herein, that the private respondents had approached the Writ Court, meaning thereby both the appellant as well as the private respondents are claiming right, title and interest over the suit land as their own. Obviously in such circumstances, it is neither for the Circle Officer nor for this Court to determine such title, especially in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction or for that matter in the letters patent appeal. 7. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this appeal reserving liberty to the appellant to establish her title before a civil court of competent jurisdiction. 8. It is made clear that in the event of the appellant approaching the Civil Court, the concerned court shall decide the case based upon the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, uninfluenced any observation made either by the Writ Court or by this Court in the preceding paragraphs. 9. The parties are left to pay the cost. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/Rohit