2025:JHHC:22881-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 91 of 2024 Mahadev Das @ Kumar Dev, son of Shri Surendra Das, resident of Village- Dugdha, P.O. & P.S.- Gamharia, District- Seraikella-Kharsawan … … Appellant Versus 1. Kalakar Pradhan, son of Late Ranjeet Pradhan, resident of village- Jhargovindpur, Dugdha, P.O. & P.S.- Gamharia, District- Seraikella- Kharsawan 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan 3. The Circle Officer, Gamharia Circle, Gamharia, District- Seraikella- Kharsawan 4. The Senior Postal Superintendent-cum-Central Public Information Officer, Singhbhum Area, Jamshedpur 5. Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi … … Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Appellant : In person (through virtual mode) For the Resp. Nos. 2, 3 & 5 : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G. For the Resp. No. 4 : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I Mrs. Niki Sinha, C.G.C Order No. 08 Dated: 11.08.2025 I.A. No. 5131 of 2024 The present interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 69 days in filing the instant Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order/judgment dated 18.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 6849 of 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the respective respondents do not oppose the said application. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons stated in the present interlocutory application, the delay of 69 days in filing the instant Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. 4. I.A. No. 5131 of 2024 is accordingly allowed. L.P.A. No. 91 of 2024 5. Heard. 6. Aggrieved with the order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the 2025:JHHC:22881-DB 2 learned writ court in W.P.(C) No. 6849 of 2023, the writ petitioner/appellant has filed the instant appeal. 7. The facts are not in dispute that the appellant approached the writ court seeking direction regarding cancellation of the sale deed executed by the respondent no. 1 on the ground that though the respondent no. 1 had entered into an agreement with the appellant for sale of the land in question, but the said respondent is selling the same to several other persons. 8. The learned writ court held that the prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition could not be adjudicated by the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the appropriate and proper remedy was to file a suit. 9. Having heard the appellant as well as the counsel for the respective respondents, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the writ court in view of the fact that no relief whatsoever has been claimed against the State and if any relief has been claimed against an individual, who is not discharging any public duty, the dispute is purely private between the parties which, under no circumstance, can be adjudicated upon under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Consequently, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is reserved with the appellant to approach the civil court, if so advised. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) N.A.F.R. Manish/Ritesh