IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 568 of 2021 Ranchi Cement & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., through its Director, Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Ranchi ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi 2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue, Registration & Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi 4. The Circle Officer, Ratu, Ranchi 5. The District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi ….. Respondents ----- CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner: Mr. Amritansh Vats For the Respondents: Mr. Devesh Krishna, S.C (Mines)-III ----- 10/11.03.2025 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to declare the petitioner’s land appertaining to Khata No. 426, Plot No. 2933, Mouza-Ratu, P.S. No.79 (Ratu), District-Ranchi, measuring an area of about 5.0 Acres as the raiyati land in the light of the enquiry report as contained in memo No. 18(R) dated 19.05.1986 (Anneuxre-7 to the writ petition) and not to cause any interference or hindrance over the said land. 2. The present writ petition was earlier taken up on 07.03.2024 and a Bench of this Court keeping in view the nature of the payer made in the same, had granted liberty to the petitioner to prefer an application before the respondent No.3 in view of the notification dated 10.10.2019, who in turn, was directed to take appropriate decision and to file an affidavit to that effect. 3. Subsequently, a supplementary counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents (sworn by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ranchi) annexing a copy of the order as contained in memo No. 3077 (II) dated 23.09.2024 passed by the respondent No.3 in compliance of the aforesaid order of the Court rejecting the petitioner’s representation. The petitioner by way of filing I.A. No. 13684/2024 has sought challenge to the said order passed by the respondent No.3 and has also prayed for amendment in the present writ petition accordingly. 4. Since during pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent No.3 has already rejected the petitioner’s request for taking out the land in question from the prohibited list, it would be appropriate that the petitioner, instead of challenging the same seeking amendment in the present writ petition, should file a fresh writ petition challenging the said order passed by the respondent No.3 as the original prayer made in the present writ petition no more survives. 5. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observation and liberty. 6. Consequently, I.A. 13684/2024 also stands disposed of. Satish/- (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)