2026:JHHC:9329 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 2880 of 2018 --------- 1. Bimla Devi, aged about 65 years, wife of Situ Mahato. 2. Shanti Devi, aged about 60 years, wife of Bishnu Yadav. Both resident of Village-Tulsidabar, P.O. & P.S.-Chitra, sub- division Madhupur, District-Deoghar, Jharkhand. ......Petitioners Versus (i) Kalyani Devi, w/o Late Kinkar Mahato (ii) Paresh Mahato, s/o Late Kinkar Mahato (iii) Ashok Mahato, s/o Late Kinkar Mahato (iv) Yogendra Mahato, s/o Late Kinkar Mahato (v) Ujjwal Mahato, s/o Late Kinkar Mahato (vi) Neelam Mahato, s/o Late Kinkar Mahato (vii) Puna Devi, D/o Late Kinkar Mahato (viii) Asha Devi, D/o Late Kinkar Mahato (ix) Yosna Devi, D/o Late Kinkar Mahato (x) Rekha Devi, w/o Late Chasa Mahato, Daughter-in-law of Late Kinkar Mahato All R/o vill.-Tulsidabar, P.O. & P.S.-Chitra, Sub-Division- Madhupur, Dist.-Deoghar, Jharkhand. .....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M.K. Roy, G.A.-I Mr. Aman Shekhar, A.C. to G.A.-I Mr. Anjani Kumar Verma, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, Advocate --------- 26/Dated:-02.04.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying therein to set aside the order dated 16.11.2017 (Annexure-5), passed by learned Court of Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Division-Dumka in R.M.A. No.-39/2012-13; whereby and where under the appeal filed by Respondents (Appellants in Appeal No. R.M.A. No.-39/2012-13) was allowed without 2026:JHHC:9329 2 considering the submission made by the petitioners. 3. At the outset, learned senior counsel for the petitioners draws attention of this Court towards the impugned order whereby the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka had set aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer on the ground that the same is unreasoned and non-speaking order. 4. In reply to the same, learned counsel for the respondents draws attention of this court towards the counter affidavit and submits that during pendency of this writ application, an objection was filed by the petitioners herein and the said objection was decided against them and the same has become final and the petitioners herein have not challenged the same before any Court. 5. In reply to the same, learned senior counsel submits that a title suit for apportionment is pending; as such, the instant application may be disposed of by observing that the said title suit may proceed independently without getting prejudiced by any of the orders including the impugned order. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid, the instant writ application, is hereby, disposed of by simply making an observation that any title suit which is pending before the concerned Court; the same will proceed strictly in accordance with law and the order will be passed on the basis of evidences which will be produced before the concerned Trial Court and this order will not come on the way in deciding the said Title Suit, if any, 2026:JHHC:9329 3 which has been filed by the petitioners. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) APRIL 02, 2026 vikas/- uploaded 22/04/2026