2026:JHHC:1316 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Civil Writ Jurisdiction) W.P. (C) No.6009 of 2025 ---- Aditya Singh, aged about 72 years, S/O Late Parmeshwar Singh, R/O Ward no 15, near Purnima Talkis, P.O.: Jhumri Telaiya, P.S.: Telaiya, Distt.: Kodarma, Jharkhand – 825409. …. …. Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Kodarma, having their office at Kodarma Collectorate, P.O. & P.S.: Koderma, District: Koderma, Jharkhand. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Kodarma, having their office at Kodarma Collectorate, P.O. & P.S.: Kodarma, District: Kodarma, Jharkhand. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer cum Magistrate, Kodarma, having their office at Kodarma Collectorate, P.O. & P.S.: Kodarma, District: Kodarma, Jharkhand. 4. The Circle Officer, Kodarma, having their office at Circle Office, Kodarma, P.O. & P.S.: Kodarma, District: Kodarma, Jharkhand. 5. The Officer-in-Charge, Telaiya, having their office at Telaiya, Kodarma, P.O. & P.S.: Telaiya, District: Kodarma, Jharkhand …. …. Respondent(s) ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.A.G.-II ---- 06/Dated: 19th January, 2026 I.A. No.16605 of 2025 1. The present interlocutory application has been filed for impleading necessary party as Respondent Nos.6, 7 & 8 but inadvertently they have not been added. 2. Considering the reason assigned in the present interlocutory application, it is hereby allowed and disposed of. 3. Let the name of the party as shown in paragraph-1 of the present interlocutory application be added as party respondent Nos.6, 7 & 8. 4. Office is directed to make necessary correction. W.P.(C) No.6009 of 2025 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:- 2026:JHHC:1316 Page | 2 W.P. (C) No.6009 of 2025 “A. For the issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of mandamus show causing the respondents as to under what circumstances no action has been taken to provide security for the purpose of drilling for ground water for drinking purposes as there is acute crisis pursuant to direction issued by Sub Divisional officer cum Sub Divisional Magistrate vide memo no 220/Go dated 12.03.2024 and274/Go dated 04.04.2024 to officer in charge based on enquiry report dated 23.02.2024 conducted by Circle officer vide which a recommendation was made by Circle officer that petitioner is being harassed and is not being allowed to drill for ground water by Santosh Singh without any document and as such a magistrate along with police personnel's be provided for the purpose of drilling on his own Raiyati Land. B. Further direction upon the concerned Respondents to act upon the direction issued by S.D.O Kodarma vide memo no 220/Go dated 12.03.2024 and 274/Go dated 04.04.2024 on the basis of enquiry report submitted by Circle officer vide memo no 358 dated 23.02.2024 pursuant to his direction issued vide memo no 428 dated 06.11.2023 and to further provide security by deploying Magistrate and police personals so that petitioner can go for drilling for ground water for drinking purposes for which necessary permissions have already been granted in favour of petitioner by Municipal Body and for raising boundary over the vacant remaining part of petitioner land. C. Further direction may be issued to the respondents to consider and to take appropriate action upon the representation dated 16.07.2024, 03.09.2024, 28.11.2024, 31.01.2025(11 series), and further to act upon that within stipulated time.” 7. It is manifest that the dispute in question is purely civil in nature. If action and inaction of one and another private party is in dispute then it can only be resolved by the Civil Cour. No adjudicatory jurisdiction has been conferred upon either the administrative authority or the revenue authority to decide such disputes. 8. In that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to entertain the present writ petition, accordingly, it is hereby dismissed. 9. However, the petitioner is at liberty to work out his further remedy in accordance with law. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated: 19th January, 2026 Amar/- Uploaded on 20.01.2026