2025:JHHC:37819-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.153 of 2025 ----- Ashok Kumar Sahay, son of Late Madheshwar Sahay, resident of Durga Pathak Road, P.O. & P.S. Medininagar (Daltonganj), District-Palamau .......... Appellant. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, At+P.O. & P.S. Medininagar (Daltonganj), District Palamau. 2. Additional Collector, Palamau, At+P.O. & P.S. Medininagar (Daltonganj), District Palamau 3. Khas Mahal Officer, At+P.O. & P.S. Medininagar (Daltonganj), District Palamau. 4. Binod Udaypuri Son of Late Chhatu Lal Udaypuri, Resident of Vishnu Mandir Road, P.O. & P.S. Medininagar (Daltonganj), District Palamau. 5. Hari Krishna Sahay Son of Late Brajeshwar Sahay, Resident of Mohalla Jail Hata, P.O. & P.S. Medininagar (Daltonganj), District Palamau. 6. Sawroop Singh Namdhari, Son of Sri Mahendra Singh Namdhari, Resident of Near Namdhari Gurudwara, at Nawatoli, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj (Medininagar), at his commercial shop Bihar Dresses, Vishnu Mandir Road, P.O. & P.S. Medininagr (Daltonganj), District Palamau. 7. Amardeep Singh, Son of Sri Sardar Ajit Singh, Resident of Near Ram Mandir, P.O. & P.S. Medininagar (Daltonganj), District Palamau, working at his commercial shop Bihar Electricals, Vishnu Mandir Road, P.O. & P.S. Medininagar (Daltonganj), District Palamau. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Manindra Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to AAG-III ----- Order No.02 Date: 17.12.2025 1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Writ Court, whereby the parties to the lis were relegated to the Civil Court as the matter was pending before it, the appellant has filed the instant appeal questioning the said order. 2. It is not in dispute that the writ-petitioner/appellant filed an application for renewal of the lease with respect to the property 2025:JHHC:37819-DB 2 involved in this case which was pending consideration. During pendency of the writ petition, one application was filed by the son of the writ petitioner bearing Misc. Case No.04/2022-23 challenging the grant of fresh lease in favour of the intervenor- respondent in connection with the same property and the objection of the son of the petitioner was rejected. Thereafter, the writ petition was amended assailing the said order. 3. It is the contention of the appellant that lease involved in the instant case pertains to the year 1928 which had been executed for a period of 30 years and an application for renewal had been filed in the year 1975-76, which was pending. Therefore, the land could not have been allotted to the intervenors till the application of renewal was rejected. 4. It was the specific case of the appellant that he had already filed a suit in this connection against the intervenor-respondents which was pending adjudication but would contend that since the State was not a party to the said suit and no relief was claimed against it, therefore, the instant writ petition is maintainable. However, the said contention was not accepted by the learned Writ Court and rightly so because admittedly the lis between the contesting parties was still pending before the Civil Court. There can be no dispute that it is on the Civil Court which can record findings of the title and once such suit is pending, the appellant could not have resorted to plural remedy of filing a writ petition thereby trying pre-empt a decision in its favour. Such course could have been adopted only if the civil suit would have been withdrawn. In 2025:JHHC:37819-DB 3 absence thereof, the learned Writ Court committed no error in dismissing the writ petition by relegating the parties to have their rights determined before the Civil Court, where, as observed above, the suit instituted at the behest and on behalf of the writ petitioner/appellant was still pending. 5. Consequently, we see no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 6. However, we make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case and any observation made hereinabove is solely for the purpose of deciding the instant appeal. Therefore, the competent court of civil jurisdiction which has seized of the matter shall decide the lis totally uninfluenced by any observation made by us in this order or for that matter any observation made by the learned Writ Court while adjudicating the suit in question. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 17th December, 2025 Sanjay/Rohit