(2025:JHHC:21849) 1 W.P. (C) No. 1414 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 1414 of 2019 ------ 1. Bhairab Majee, aged about 64 years, son of late Jagannath Majee, resident of Tadgram, PO – Bahara, PS – Para, District – Purulia (West Bengal). 2. Binod Bihari Majee, ageed about 64 years, son of late Madan Chandra Manjhi, resident of Qr. No. D – 42, S.T.P.S., Santhaldih, PO & PS- Santhaldih, District – Purulia (West Bengal). … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, PO & PS – Dhurwa, District – Ranchi. 2. Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, both having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, PO – Dhurwa, PS- Jagannathpur, District – Ranchi. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, PO , PS – B.S. City, District – Bokaro. 4. Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro, PO , PS – B.S. City, District – Bokaro. 5. Circle Officer, Chandankiyari, PO & PS – Chandankiyari, District – Bokaro. … Respondents ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Nisith Kr. Sahani, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, SC(L&C)-I : Mr. Nawal Kishore Pandey, AC to SC(L&R)-I : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Mahavir Pd. Sinha, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/order (s)/direction (2025:JHHC:21849) 2 W.P. (C) No. 1414 of 2019 (s) in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the land under Khata No. 195, Plot No. 452, 455 and 459 of Mouza Rangameta, Area 61.43 Decimals. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioners got a decree vide judgment dated 05.06.1978 passed in Title Suit of 17 of 1977; in the suit filed by the ancestors of the petitioners, with the prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs and further restraining their representatives from going upon the land mentioned in the said land in the aforesaid decree. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the predecessor in interest of respondent no. 1, i.e., the State of Bihar filed Title Appeal No. 95 of 1978 but the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 14.05.1987 by the Additional District Judge - II, Dhanbad. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for, is allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that so far as the prayer no. 1 is concerned, since the same prayer has been allowed by the Competent Civil Court, the writ petition for the selfsame prayer has become infructuous. So far as the second prayer for direction upon the respondent no. 5 to issue rent receipt on receipt of the rent for the aforesaid land is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that for issuing rent receipt, the sine-qua non is that the petitioner must be in possession of the land in question. The petitioners though have filed Title Suit No. 17 of 1977, yet they have neither prayed the relief of declaration of his title over the land in question nor they have prayed for the relief of confirmation of his possession over the land in question. So, in the absence of any adjudication of the right, title, interest or (2025:JHHC:21849) 3 W.P. (C) No. 1414 of 2019 possession of the petitioners in a writ petition, the disputed question of fact as to whether the petitioners are in possession of the land in question cannot be determined but the petitioner is free to make application for mutation of their name in the revenue records, if at all they are in possession of the land in question and in case, such an application is filed by the petitioners, the same will be disposed of in accordance with law by the Competent Authority in terms of the provisions of Bihar Tenant’s Holding (Maintenance of Records ) Act, 1973. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after carefully going through the materials available on records, it is pertinent to mention here that, since the undisputed fact remains that a Competent Civil Court has already granted a permanent injunction in favor of the petitioners restraining the respondents from disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the land in question and there is no fresh allegation of any disturbance of possession in any specific manner by the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the first prayer of the petitioners made in this writ petition has become infructuous, in view of the judgment and decree passed by the Competent Civil Court in this respect, as already referred to above in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment. So far as the second prayer for direction to the respondent no. 5 to issue rent receipt on the receipt of rent for the land in question is concerned, as has rightly been submitted by the learned counsel for the State, that as neither the petitioners in the concerned civil suit prayed for the relief of declaration of their right, title, interest or possession nor such relief has been granted by the Civil Court and in the absence of that if otherwise, it is the contention of the petitioners, that still they are entitled to (2025:JHHC:21849) 4 W.P. (C) No. 1414 of 2019 pay rent and receipt being granted to them, then, the petitioners are free to file any appropriate application for the same in terms of the provisions of the Bihar Tenant’s Holding (Maintenance of the Records) Act, 1973 and if such an application is filed, the same shall be dealt with by the Competent Officer in accordance with law. 7. This writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 29th July, 2025 AFR/ Aditi