2025:JHHC:13444-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 107 of 2023 1. Shanti Devi, aged about 68 years, w/o Late Govind Ray 2. Ranjit Ray, aged about 34 years. 3. Sanjit Ray, aged about 27 years 4. Sintu Ray, aged about 25 years 5. Tuntun Ray, aged about 23 years, all sons of Late Govind Ray. 6. Manju Devi @ Anju Devi aged about 52 years, D/o Govind Ray 7. Chinta Devi, aged about 56 years, w/o Late Budhan Ray 8. Prakash Ray, aged about 36 years, son of late Budhan Ray. All residents of village Charkatade, P.O.- Mahadeogarh, P.S. Poraya, District-Godda ( Jharkhand) ... Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, District-Dumka 3. The Settlement Officer, Santhalpargana, Dumka, , P.O. & P.S. Dumka, District-Dumka 4. 16 Annas Raiyat of Mouza Kordiha, P.O. Kordiha, P.S. Jarmundi, District- Dumka 5. Kashinath Jha, son of Late Binod Jha 6. Madhumala Devi, wife of Kashinath Jha 7. Lalan Kumar Jha, son of Kashi Nath Jha, 8. Sushil Kumar Jha, son of Kashi Nath Jha 9. Sanjay Kumar Jha, son of Kashinath Jha, All resident of Village Corediha, P.O.-Petsar, P.S. Jarmundi, District-Dumka 10. Rita Devi, Wife of Rama Nand Tiwary, resident of Village-Chattar, P.O. + P.S. Chattar, District-Banka ( Bihar) 11. Ranju Devi, wife of Mahesh Pandey, resident of Village- Sanoshor, P.O. & P.S. Sanoshar, District-Bhagalpur ( Bihar) 12. Babita Devi, Wife of Gopal Pandey, resident of Badampur, P.O. & P.S.- Badampur, District-Bhagalpur ( Bihar) … ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellants: Mr. Rajiva Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, SC (L&C)-I For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate --------- 07/Dated: 05.05.2025 2025:JHHC:13444-DB 1. Heard both sides. 2. The private respondents in the writ petition W.P.(C) No. 2316 2004 have filed this Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment of learned Single Judge dt. 09.02.2022. 3. The said writ petition had been filed by the private respondents herein/writ petitioners challenging an order dt.20.02.2004 passed by the 2nd respondent in Revenue Miscellaneous Appeal (RMA) No. 03/1985-86. The 2nd respondent in the said order had confirmed the order dt. 11.12.1984 passed by the 3rd respondent in Fouti Case No. 02 of Mouza- Kordiha No. 32 and had ordered to record the name of the appellants herein with respect to Jamabandi No. 15 as the heirs of the recorded tenant. 4. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order had referred to the contentions of both sides and has come to the conclusion that there is a dispute about title and that it cannot be adjudicated by the Settlement Officer in Fouti proceeding or by the Commissioner in appeal and while directing both parties to approach a civil court for appropriate relief, curiously directed that the land should be put in the custody of the State Government. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that while the appellants have no grievance against the denial of relief to the private respondents herein since the appellants claim to be in possession, the learned Single Judge ought not to have directed the State to take possession of the property in their possession. 6. We find force in the said submission. 7. The counsel for the private respondents is also unable to support the direction of the learned Single Judge that possession of the subject land should be taken over by the State. 2025:JHHC:13444-DB 8. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set-aside the direction of the learned Single Judge in so far as he directed the party in possession to deliver the possession of the land to the State Government, since there was no occasion warranting such a direction and both the appellants and the private parties can avail whatever remedy is available to them at law with regard to their respective claims to the property. 9. Therefore, the appeal is allowed to that extent and the direction of the learned Single Judge that the State Government should take possession of the subject land is set-aside. Parties are at liberty to avail remedies available to them at law for adjudicating their disputes. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sharda/MM/ Cp.02