IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.612 of 2025 ----- Smt. Tuni Devi, wife of Ramesh Yadav, Village Rajguruwa, P.O. Jori, P.S. Chatra Sadar, District Chatra. .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Chatra. 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra. 4. Additional Collector, Chatra. 5. Circle Officer, Chatra. 6. Umesh Yadav, Son of Sahdeo Yadav, Village Rajguruwa, P.O. Jori, P.S. Chatra Sadar, District Chatra. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. P. C. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Shalini Shahdeo, AC to SC (L&C)-I ----- Order No.05 Date: 02.04.2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no.5 to demarcate the petitioner’s land appertaining to Thana no.162, Khata no.3, plot nos.6, 8, 9, 11, 25, 32, 33, 46, 54, 60, 65, 67, 68, 69, 71, 103, 109, 113 & 121, in total measuring about 01 acre, situated at village Rajguruwa, P.O. Jori, P.S. Chatra Sadar, District Chatra, which has been acquired by her through registered sale deed no.395 dated 16th January, 2008. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before this Court that despite the petitioner having deposited Rs.2,000/- on 17th March, 2024 for demarcation of the aforesaid land, no concrete action has been taken by the respondent authorities. Moreover, though two demarcation cases i.e. Demarcation Case nos.70 of 2023-24 and 71 of 2023-24 were instituted, but the respondent authorities did not take any effective step so as to get the aforesaid land of the petitioner demarcated. She also represented the respondent no.3 in this regard, however, the same was also not responded, which has compelled the petitioner to prefer the present writ petition. 3. Mrs. Shalini Shahdeo, learned A.C. to SC (L&C)-I appearing on behalf of the State respondents, while referring to the petitioner’s application dated 23rd July, 2024 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), submits that there appears to be a dispute over the said land, as the respondent no.6- Umesh Yadav earlier objected the demarcation of the land in question despite deputing a Magistrate for the said purpose. However, if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation on the present issue before the respondent no.5, the said respondent shall take appropriate decision/step in accordance with law. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state respondents, the petitioner is given liberty to prefer a fresh representation, seeking demarcation of the land in question, before the respondent no.5. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no.5 after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent no.6 shall take appropriate decision/step in accordance with law on the petitioner’s representation within four weeks from the date of filing of the same. -2- W.P.(C) No.612 of 2025 5. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the assistance of revenue authority in demarcation of a land is permissible only where there is certain confusion with respect to boundary of the same. However, if there is a bona fide dispute by the other party with respect to title and possession of the land for which an application for demarcation is made by a person, the concerned revenue authority instead of taking step for getting the said land demarcated should relegate the parties to seek remedy before competent court of civil jurisdiction. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid liberty, direction and observation. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/ -3- W.P.(C) No.612 of 2025