Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:31903-DB ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A.No. 259 of 2024 Bishwajeet, S/o Late Kamta Prasad Singh, aged about 54 years, R/o 56 B, Pocket B, SFS Flat, P.O. and P.S. Mayur Vihar, Phase 3, Delhi, State-New Delhi-110096 … … …Respondent No.6/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S. Sadar, District- Hazaribagh. 3. The Circle Officer, Chouparan, P.O., P.S. Chouparan, District Hazaribagh. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S., Sadar, District Hazaribagh. 5. The Officer In Charge, Chouparan Police Station, P.O., P.S. Chouparan, District Hazaribagh. … … ... Repondents/Respondents 6. Jamal Ashraf Khan, Aged about 28 years, S/o Matin Ehsan Khan, R/o. Pipcho, P.O. Makatpur, P.S. Jainagar, District Koderma (Jharkhand). … Petitioner/Respondent … CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI For the Appellant : Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, Advocate : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate : Mrs. Kabisha Goenka, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shahi, Advocate For the Res. No.6 : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate : Mr. H.K.Shikarwar, Advocate … Order No. 12/dated 14.10.2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. The instant appeal, under clause 10 of Letters Patent, is directed against the Order/Judgment dated 13.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 387 of 2019 being aggrieved to the extent that by making reference of the land in possession of the petitioner, the respondent No.6 to the appeal, the same is causing serious prejudice and as such Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:31903-DB ) 2 being aggrieved with that part of the observation, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, therefore, has submitted that if the observation so made to the extent that the Police did not interfere, nor will interfere with the peaceful occupation of land in possession of this petitioner, the part of the word in possession of this petitioner it will be recalled. The appellant will confine the instant appeal to that extent only without going into the merit of the appeal. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the State and the respondent No.6 who is being represented by Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta and Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar are having no opposition to such submission made on behalf of the learned Counsel for the appellant. 4. This Court in view of the above is not going into the details of the facts but in order to consider the aforesaid submission advanced on behalf of the appellant it needs to refer herein, upon which the learned Counsel for the appellant has emphatically relied upon i.e. the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate in a proceeding initiated under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. as available in page 98 which is the order dated 20.04.2018. As per the said order the possession has been declared in favour of the appellant. The grievance of the appellant is that if the possession is there in favour of the appellant as per the said order, then in making observation in Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:31903-DB ) 3 the paragraph 4 in the order passed by the learned Single Judge showing the possession of the land in favour of the writ petitioner i.e. respondent No.6 who is writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 387 of 2019 is causing serious prejudice to his claim. It has been submitted that there is no difficulty that the party aggrieved is to approach the competent court of civil jurisdiction in order to have the decision by filing declaratory suit but the aforesaid land showing the possession in favour of the writ petitioner is accordingly refused hence that part of the order needs to be recalled. 5. We have also heard the learned Counsel appearing for the State Mr. Ratnesh Kumar. Learned Counsel for the State has submitted that there is no averment made to that effect in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State before the learned Writ Court and even in the present appeal. The same is the stand of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 before this Court. Learned Single Judge, as to the claim of the intervenor had opined to approach the appropriate forum. Instead of delving upon the issue of possession whether it is in favour of the appellant or the respondent No.6 deem it fit and proper in view of the fact that dispute of title is involved hence making any observation to the effect of possession of the land in favour of either of the party will prejudice the case of the parties either the petitioner or the respondent No.6. Since the suit is to be filed as per the observation made in the writ petition Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:31903-DB ) 4 hence the issue of possession along with the declaratory suit is also left open to be adjudication in the said title suit if preferred by the party aggrieved. 6. This Court in view of the above is of the view that the part of the observation made in paragraph 4 to the effect that land in possession has been found to be in peaceful possession of the petitioner is hereby recalled. The party aggrieved are at liberty to approach the competent court of civil jurisdiction for declaration of right and title along with the recovery of possession, if any. The instant appeal stand disposed of. 7. This Court has not entered into the issue of merit. If the suit will be preferred then the competent court of civil jurisdiction will decide the issue of title on strictly on its own merit without being prejudiced by the order passed by this Court or any of the observation made by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 13.02.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 387 of 2019. 8. Interlocutory Application, if any, also stands disposed of. 9. Personal appearance of Circle Officer is dispensed with. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Dated 14th October, 2025 P.K.S./Suman N.A.F.R.