2025:JHHC:31771 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5807 of 2025 1. Kumari Ratnakar, Wife of Jai Niwas Pandey, aged about 49 years, Resident of 503 Ambey Villa Apartment, Visti Para, Hirapur, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad. 2. Pramod Agarwal, Son of Late Jagdish Prasad Agarwalla, about 63 years, resident of Flat No. 402, Balajee Enclave, Shahstri Nagar, Bank More, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, officiating from his office at O/o Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad. 2. Sub-Registrar, Dhanbad, officiating from his office at O/o Sub-Registrar Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad. ... … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ayush, Advocate Mr. Bajrang Kumar, Advocate Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate Ms. Smita Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA-III -------- Order No.02 /Dated: 13th October 2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying therein for the following reliefs: “1a. For Issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) upon the Respondent No. 1 to immediately remove the land situated at Mouza Saraidhella, P.S. Saraidhella, District Dhanbad, Khata No. 175, Plot No. 2967 (New Khata No. 1309, New Plot No. 2611 and 2712) admeasuring an area of 56.20 Decimals from the "Restricted List" in NGDRS as the land in question is transferrable in nature and the Petitioners are having the right, title, interest and possession of the said property. AND b. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) upon or the Respondent No. 2 to register the Sale Deed presented by the Petitioners in favour of Shri Ashok Vishwakarma which has been illegally denied by the Respondent No. 2 on the ground that the land situated at Mouza Saraidhella, P.S. Saraidhella, District Dhanbad, Khata No. 175, Plot No. 2967 (New Khata No. 1309, New Plot No. 2611 and 2712) admeasuring an area of 2 Decimals out of 56.20 Decimals on the ground that the said land is recorded as Gair Abad, is included in Restricted List in NGDRS and cannot be registered in light of Section 22A of the Registration Act 1908 and Notification dated 26th of August 2015 despite the fact that Section 22A of the Registration Act and the Notification dated 26th of August 2015 has 2025:JHHC:31771 2 been struck down by the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand. AND/OR c. For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) that this Hon'ble Court deems just and appropriate give the facts and circumstances of the case, so as to ensure justice to the Petitioner.” 2. The brief facts of the case as it appears from the writ application are that the land in question i.e., Khata No. 175, Plot No. 2967 (New Khata No. 1309, New Plot No. 2611 and 2712) Mouza-Saraidhela, Thana No. 08, admeasuring an area 56.20 Decimals was acquired by Rohini Mahtain by bandobasti from ex-landlord in the year 1937 and she after mutation in her favour has been in peaceful possession of the said land and the rent has been paid to the Government. Thereafter, Rohini Mahtain through her Power of Attorney Holder sold the land admeasuring area of 12 Kathas and 6 Kathas to petitioner no.2 and 16 Kathas to the petitioner no.1. When the petitioners executed a sale deed it was not registered with a note that the property is mentioned in the restricted list of NGDRS and it cannot be registered under Section 22 A of the Registration Act, 1908. The aforesaid land has been placed in the prohibited list. Consequently, the petitioners are unable to sell their land and are in acute need of money. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the core issue has already been decided and the present writ application is covered by the judgment dated 13th December, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 847 of 2023 (Brinda Devi Agarwal Vs. State of Jharkhand). 4. Learned counsel for the Respondents could not dispute the aforesaid position. 5. Even otherwise, in view of the fact that the Respondent authorities are not vested in any law to exercise any jurisdiction affecting the right, title and interest of any individual. It is only the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, who will decide such issue. Placing any property in prohibited list is a colourable exercise of power and the State authorities cannot be the judge of its own cause. 6. Therefore, for the reasons alike, with the case of Brinda Devi 2025:JHHC:31771 3 Agarwal (supra), the instant writ application stands allowed and the concerned respondent is directed to allow registration of the land in question without giving effect to prohibited list with respect to aforesaid land of the petitioner prohibiting the transfer of land within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 7. Pending I.A.s, if any, also stand closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 13th October 2025 Amit Uploaded on 04/11/2025