IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 310 of 2025 Madan Kumar Prasad, S/o Mohit Lal Mahto, R/o Village-Korabar, PO- Turmuli, PS-Burmu, District-Ranchi … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Additional Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi 3. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Ranchi 4. The Circle Officer, Burmu, Ranchi 5. The District Animal Husbandry Officer, Siram Toli, Chutia, Ranchi … … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ishteyaque Ahmed, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. P.C. Sinha, AC to GA-III ----- 07/11.03.2025 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 09.07.2023 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 4 – the Circle Officer, Burmu, Ranchi in Mutation Case No. 68 R27/2023-24 by which the said mutation case of the petitioner has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 06.10.2023 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 3 – the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Ranchi in Mutation Appeal No. 544 R15/2023-24 by which the said mutation appeal of the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 09.04.2024 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 2 – the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Mutation Revision No. 138 R15/2023-24 by which the said mutation revision of the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The petitioner is claiming his right, title and interest over the land in question by virtue of a registered sale deed 2 W.P.(C). No. 310 of 2025 executed by Gafur Ali and Mohammad Salim, S/o Late Hamid Ali. However, on bare perusal of the impugned orders, it is evident that an old and a new veterinary hospital is situated over the said land and thus there is a bonafide dispute of title between the petitioner and the respondent no. 5, which can only be decided by a competent court of civil jurisdiction. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of dispute raised by the petitioner in the writ petition, this Court is of the view that the same is beyond the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities. So far as the impugned orders dated 09.04.2024, 06.10.2023 and 09.07.2023 passed by the respondent nos. 4, 3 and 2 respectively are concerned, they have rightly rejected the petitioner’s request for mutation of the land in question in his name as it has been found that he does not have clear possession over the same since an old and a new veterinary hospital are still situated over the said land. 4. Under the said circumstance, this Court does not see any infirmity in the impugned orders dated 09.04.2024, 06.10.2023 and 09.07.2023 passed by the respondent nos. 4, 3 and 2 respectively. 5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 6. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse before the civil court of competent jurisdiction seeking right, title and delivery of possession of the land in question in his favour. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish