2026:JHHC:1031 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.7405 of 2025 ---- Dilip Kumar Paswan, aged about 42 years, S/o Late Baldev Paswan, R/o Village Indarwa, P.O & P.S. Jhumri Tilaiya, District Koderma, Jharkhand …. …. Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, P.O. & P.S. Koderma, District Koderma, Jharkhand 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Koderma, P.O. & P.S. Koderma, District Koderma, Jharkhand 4. Circle Officer, Koderma, P.O. & P.S. Koderma, District Koderma, Jharkhand 5. Shyam Sunder Sighania, S/o Bholanath Sighania, R/o Jhumri-Tilaiya, New Ward No.15, Jhumri-Tilaiya, Nagar Parishad, P.O. Jhumri-Tilaiya, P.S.- Tilaiya, District Koderma, Jharkhand …. …. Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III For the Respondent No.5 : Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate ---- 07/Dated: 15th January, 2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:- “For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) directing and commanding upon the respondents for encroachment of the land and wrongly created the Jamabandi No.171/3 against the father of respondent no. 5 (Bholanath Sighania) in the order of Learned L.R.D.C., Koderma from Khata No.29, Plot No.1913, Mauza Asana, Area - 2.45 Acres whereby and whereunder the name of fore-father of the petitioner's Churaman Dusadh and Ors which was original tenant and entitled of aforesaid lands and the Jamabandi was opened but the respondent no.5 has wrongly created the Jamabandi and make the false documents (Hukumnama) against the petitioner and acquired the some plots and manipulated the Register- II. And For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents for cancellation of Jamabandi No.171/3 to wrongly created from Bholanath Sighania and stopped the encroachment the aforesaid.” 2026:JHHC:1031 2 W.P.(C) No.7405 of 2025 3. The description of land is as follows:- “Plot No.1913, Khata No.29, Mouza, Asana, Thana No.245, Paargana-Gumo, Area 2.43 Acres, Ward No.5, Jhumari Telaiya, District Koderma [earlier District Hazaribag].” 4. The sequence of facts as appears from the arguments are as follows:- The father of the petitioner and his brother had filed appeal being Misc. Appeal Case No.02/08-09 before the LRDC, Koderma against the order passed in Misc. Case No.14/08-09. As per record, Khata No.29, Mouza Asana, Thana No.185, Plot No.1913, are 2.43 acres are recorded in the name of Churaman Dusadh & Ors as a Khatiyani Raiyat. The LRDC Koderma, has passed the order against the respondent No.5 and cancelled the Jamabandi No.171/3 which has wrongly created in the name of Bholanath Singhania, the father of respondent No.5. The petitioner paid rent to the State upto year 2024. The petitioner has written a letter to the respondent No.4 (Circle Officer, Koderma) stating about the cancellation of Jamabandi of Bholanath Singhania, in view of the order of the LRDC, Koderma passed in Misc. Appeal No.02/08- 09. Against the order of LRDC, Koderma, the father of the respondent No.5 had filed Mutation (Misc) Revision Case No.06 of 2010 before the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma. 5. It appears that the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma being the revisional authority, has rightly observed that it is a civil dispute between the parties and it can only be resolved by the competent Civil Court. 6. It further appears that the civil suit, being Title Suit No.29 of 2011 had already been filed which was dismissed for default, vide order dated 12.07.2023. For restoration thereof, Restoration Case No.16 of 2023 has been filed and it is pending. 2026:JHHC:1031 3 W.P.(C) No.7405 of 2025 7. Be that as it may, since there is a serious dispute of title among the parties which requires adjudication on the basis of evidence produced by the respective parties and it can be done only and only by a competent Civil Court, not by the revenue authorities. 8. This law has been properly appreciated by the revisional authority i.e., the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, who has passed the order dated 18.06.2015 in Mutation (Misc) Revision No.06 of 2010, where the present petitioner was party, but the present writ petition has been filed in the year 2025. 9. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the revisional authority has rightly observed that the parties are free to resolve their disputes by the competent Civil Court. Thus, I find no reason to entertain the present writ petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby, dismissed. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 15th January, 2026 Raja/-Uploaded on 21.01.2026