Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:38535-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 580 of 2025 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Land Reforms, State of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O: Dhurwa, P.S: Jagannathpur, District: Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad having its office at Collectorate Campus, Dhanbad, P.O & P.S: Dhanbad. 4. The Additional Collector, Dhanbad, having its office at Collectorate Campus, Dhanbad, P.O & P.S: Dhanbad, District: Dhanbad. 5. The Sub Divisional Officer, Dhanbad, P.O & P.S: Dhanbad, District: Dhanbad. 6. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad having its office at: Collectorate Campus, Dhanbad, P.O & P.S: Dhanbad, District: Dhanbad. 7. The Circle Officer, Baghmara, P.O & P.S: Baghmara, District: Dhanbad. ……. Respondents/Appellants Versus 1. Prabir Kumar Bhadra, aged about 63 years, S/O: Paresh Chandra Bhadra, R/O: Tetulmari, Station Road, P.O: Sijua, P.S: Tetulmari, District: Dhanbad. 2. Suchita Bhadra, W/O: Late Pradip Kumar Bhadra, R/O: Tetulmari, P.O: Sijua, P.S: Tetulmari, District: Dhanbad. 3. Ila Mitra, D/o: Late Paresh Chandra Bhadra, W/O: Dilip Kumar Mitra, R/O: Arsande Boreyo, P.O & P.S: Kanke, District: Ranchi. 4. Pranab Kumar Bhadra, S/o: Late Paresh Chandra Bhadra, aged about 56 years, R/O: Tetulmari, Station Road, P.O: Sijua, P.S: Tetulmari, District: Dhanbad. … … … Petitioners/Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellants: Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, A.C. to A.A.G.-II --------- 02/Dated: 22.12.2025 Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.(Oral) I.A. No. 10947 of 2025 1. For the reasons stated in the application, we find sufficient cause to condone the delay of 335 days that has crept up in filing of the appeal. 2. Ordered accordingly. 3. I.A. No. 10947 of 2025 stands allowed and disposed of. Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:38535-DB L.P.A. No. 580 of 2025 4. We really wonder why the State has come up in this appeal given the fact that names of the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents herein have been standing in the revenue entries since 1964-65, yet the mutation in their favour came to be cancelled. 5. It is settled proposition of law that there is a presumption of truth attached with the correctness of long-standing revenue entries and convincing evidence is necessary to be produced to negate the presumption attached to such entries. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to a decision of this Court in Tarun Kumar Datta v. State of Jharkhand & Ors, reported in 2022(1) JBCJ 253 (HC). 6. It is not a case where the rights of the State have been foreclosed for all times to come, rather, the learned Writ Court has left it open to the State to question the title of writ petitioners by resorting to civil proceedings before civil court of competent jurisdiction. 7. Here again it needs to be noted that it is more than settled that it is only the Civil and not the Revenue Court can decide the question of title. 8. In such circumstances, we find no infirmity much less illegality in the order passed by the learned Writ Court. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) December 22, 2025 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Pramanik/Cp.2 Uploaded on 23.12.2025