2025:JHHC:25698 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Civil Writ Jurisdiction) W.P. (C) No.65 of 2024 ---- 1. Mathur Chandra Mahto, aged about 64 years, son of Lakhi Vijay Mahto. 2. Rajendra Nath Mahto, aged about 54 years, son of Nepal Chandra Mahto. Both are residents of Chandankiyari Road, Bhawanipur, Chas, P.O. and P.S. Chas (M), District - Bokaro, Jharkhand. …. Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi. 2. The Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, G.P.O. and P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, G.P.O. and P.S. Sadar, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. 4. The Additional Collector, Bokaro, G.P.O and P.S. Sadar, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. 5. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chas, G.P.O. and P.S. Sadar, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. 6. The Circle Officer, Chas, G.P.O. and P.S. Sadar, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. 7. Meena Banerjee, wife of Late Dhiren Banerjee. 8. Kabita Banerjee wife of Rajan Banerjee. Sl. Nos. 7 and 8, both are residents of Parvatpur, P.O. Baat Binore, P.S. Siyaljori, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand. …. …. Respondent(s) ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Anurag Kumar, Adv. For the State : Ms. Rishi Bharti, A.C. to A.A.G.-III For the Resp. No.7 & 8 : Mr. Navin Kumar, Adv. ---- 08/Dated: 27th August, 2025 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “(i) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), specifically a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside of the order, dated 07/01/2022 [Annexure-19(series)], passed in Bokaro Miscellaneous Case No. 136/2020, in the matter of Meena Banerjee &another Vs. State of Jharkhand, whereby, in reference to the land bearing following descriptions:- 2025:JHHC:25698 Page | 2 W.P. (C) No.65 of 2024 "Khata No.13, Plot Nos. 822-838, 856-861, 863- 872, 874-879, 882 and 888(total number of Plots 43), measuring a total area of 50.65 acres, situated at Village Bhawanipur, Sub-division and Circle Chas, District-Bokaro." the Respondent No.2 has unilaterally held as under: "the successor of Sakhori Mahto and others have no legal right over the land and the entry in Register-II are illegal, therefore they are quashed and set-aside. Further, they have been declared as null and void and direction has been issued to the Registrar, Chas to execute sale deed in favour of one Anita Kumari or her family, and in the meantime, the Dy. Commissioner, Superintendent of Police, S.D.M Chas, have been directed to provide police protection for undertaking construction over the land in question, and the Sub Registrar has been directed to submit a status report." and with these observations the application has been allowed. (ii) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), for staying the operation, implementation and execution of order dated 07/01/2022, passed in Bokaro Miscellaneous Case No. 136/2020, by Respondent No.2, in the matter of Meena Banerjee and others Vs. State of Jharkhand, and further to direct the respondent to not enact, and to restrain themselves, in pursuance to the direction issued by the Respondent No.2, in relation to the land in question. (iii) For issuance of appropriate order(s), direction(s), directing the respondents to maintain status quo over the land in question during the pendency of the present writ application. (iv) For issuance of appropriate writ, order direction, commanding upon the Respondents to restore any piece of land that may be taken away from the petitioners, during the pendency of the present writ application.” 3. The description of the land is as follows:- “Thana No.52, Khata No.13, Plot Nos. 822-838, 856-861, 863-872, 874-879, 882 and 888(total number Plots 43), of measuring a total area of 50.65 acres, situated at Village Bhawanipur, Sub-division and Circle Chas, District-Bokaro.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has claimed that they have acquired the title through the registered sale deed and got the land mutated in the year 1965 and he has been given mutation No.466/WP. 5. On the instance of private respondent Nos.7 & 8, a proceeding has been initiated being Miscellaneous Case No.136/2020 by the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribag. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the entire proceeding and the authority i.e. the 2025:JHHC:25698 Page | 3 W.P. (C) No.65 of 2024 Commissioner is unknown to the law operating in the field i.e. The Bihar Tenancy Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. 6. It has been submitted that the present proceeding is wholly without jurisdiction, as no legal authorization exists empowering the said Commissioner to initiate or to continue the same. On the contrary, the law governing in the field vests such authority in other statutory functionaries, namely the Circle Officer, the Appellate Authority i.e. the Land Reforms Deputy Collector (LRDC), and the Revisional Authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner. It is further submitted that any order passed without authorization is without jurisdiction and it is null and void and it cannot occupy the field affecting the right of one or other party. 7. Learned counsel for the other side have tried to justify the order but they could not point out any law suggesting that the Commissioner has any such jurisdiction. 8. In view of the above factual matrix and the law brought to my notice, the impugned order dated 07.01.2022 [Annexure-19 (series)] passed by the Divisional Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hagaribagh in Miscellaneous Case No.136 of 2020, is hereby quashed and set aside. 9. However, the parties are at liberty to work out their further remedies in accordance with law including the provision of appeal and revision. 10. If any party approaches before the authority, then the concerned authority is directed to consider the same in accordance with law. 11. It is needless to say that the authorities are supposed to settle the issue as early as possible preferably within three months keeping in mind the parameter declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court which are being termed as a targeted case. 12. With above observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Amar/- Uploaded