2026:JHHC:9137 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 1769 of 2018 --------- Gopal Prasad Singh @ Gopal Singh, aged about 48 years, son of Deo Sharan Singh, resident of village-Bhatdiha, P.O. and P.S. Godda, District-Godda, (Jharkhand). ....Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. & District-Dumka. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Godda, P.O. & P.S. & District-Godda. 4. Settlement Officer, Santhal Pargana, Settlement, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. & District-Dumka. 5. Assistant Settlement Officer, Godda, P.O. & P.S. & District- Godda. 6. Anant Prasad Singh, son Deo Sharan Singh, resident of Village- Bhatdiha, P.O. & P.S. & District-Godda. ....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate Ms. Supriya Dayal, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Srikant Swaroop, A.C. to AAG-II --------- 17/Dated:-01.04.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the revisional order dated 10.01.2018 passed in S.M.R. No.08/2009-10 (Annexure-4); whereby the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 16.07.2007 which was confirmed by the Settlement Officer, Santhal Pargana, Dumka (3rd respondent) vide its appellate order dated 07.02.2009 passed in Settlement Misc. Revision No.18/2007, has been rejected. 3. Briefly stated as per the pleadings that the petitioner namely, Gopal Prasad Singh, is the younger son of Late Deo Sharan Singh, presently residing in Village Bhatdiha, P.S. & Block 2026:JHHC:9137 2 & District Godda. The private Respondent No. 6, namely Anant Prasad Singh, is the elder brother of the present petitioner. At the instance of the private respondent no. 6, a proceeding was initiated against the present petitioner before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Godda, praying therein for deleting the name of the petitioner from the Jamabandi No. 31/74 for the plot being Plot No. 934/300 admeasuring an area of 20 Decimal and further prayed for opening of Khata in the name of the private respondent no. 6. Vide order dated 16.07.2007, the Respondent No. 4 came to the conclusion that the grievance of the private respondent no. 6 to the extent of deleting the name of the petitioner from the Jamabandi No. 31/74, prima facie appears to be illegal and arbitrary and is based on non est grounds without there being any cogent supporting documents. 4. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 16.07.2007, the respondent No. 6 preferred an appeal in the court of the learned Settlement Officer, Santhal Pargana, Settlement, Dumka (Respondent No. 4), which was registered as Settlement Misc. Revision No. 18/2007. The Settlement Officer, Dumka has heard the appeal at length and after appreciating the fact that on spot inspection, it was found that the petitioner was residing in the house situated on the disputed plot in question from time immemorial i.e. from the time when the father of the petitioner was alive along with his family members and is residing at present also on the said plot and also considering the fact that on the face of the record the adoption deed relied upon by the 2026:JHHC:9137 3 private respondent no. 6 appears to be forged and fabricated and reliance cannot be placed on the said document for coming to the lawful conclusion that the petitioner has ever been adopted by the said Late Saryu Singh and for many other reasons more specifically dealt in the order dated 07.02.2009, has affirmed the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Godda vide order dated 07.02.2009. The petitioner in support of his contention that he has never been adopted by anyone and he is residing in his parental house since his birth and he is the son of Deo Sharan Singh and he is younger brother of the private respondent No.6 and in support thereof produced before the learned court below the Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India dated 01.01.2003. Even the Unique Identification Authority of India, more popularly known UID Card has been issued in favour of the petitioner showing the name of his father as Deo Sharan Singh and is resident of 11, Bhatdiha, Godda. 5. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the order dated 07.02.2009, the private respondent No.6 has assailed the said order before the revisional authority i.e. the Respondent No.2, Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, which has been registered as S.M.R. Case No. 1/2009-10. The petitioner appeared in the said case and filed his written note of arguments on 12.12.2017 categorically reiterating therein that the concurrent findings of the two authorities i.e. the Assistant Settlement Officer, Godda and the Settlement Officer, Santhal Pargana, Settlement, Dumka in the proceedings below, does not require any 2026:JHHC:9137 4 interference as the same is based on various supportive documents including the physical verification of the plot in question duly supported by various villagers as is evident from the order dated 16.07.2007. 6. The grounds taken by the petitioner in the written note of arguments submitted before the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka has not at all been taken into consideration and/or there has been no subjective finding to the effect that denial of the grounds taken by the petitioner is not maintainable and in a most mechanical manner the Respondent No.2, vide his revisional order dated 10.01.2018 passed in S.M.R. No. 8/2009-10, has quashed the orders passed by the learned courts below i.e. the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Godda and the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Santhal Pargana, Settlement, Dumka. 7. Further, in a summary proceeding the Respondent No. 2 held that the adoption of the petitioner is valid in the eye of law and accordingly has directed to delete the name of the petitioner from Jamabandi No.31/74. Hence this writ petition. 8. From bare perusal of the orders annexed i.e., the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, the order passed by the Settlement Officer and also the impugned order, there is a claim and counter claim by the petitioner and the respondent No.6 as to whether the petitioner is adopted son of late Mr. Saryu Singh and Most. Jagnabati Devi. 9. After perusal of the orders referred to hereinabove i.e., 2026:JHHC:9137 5 the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, the Settlement Officer and also the impugned order, it appears that the two officers have held that the petitioner is not the adopted son and the Commissioner has decided that since the adoption deed is genuine, the order passed by the subordinate Courts are null and void. 10. This Court finds that admittedly, there is a serious question of claim and counter claim with regard to the identification of the petitioner, inasmuch as, as to whether the petitioner is the adopted son or he is a natural son. 11. The private respondent claims that the petitioner is neither the natural son; nor the adopted son, whereas the petitioner claims that he is not the adopted son but a natural son. 12. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, since this being a highly disputed question of fact which cannot be decided either by this Court or by the Courts which has passed the orders. 13. Therefore, the impugned order giving a categorical finding that the adoption deed is genuine which is also confirmed by other documents i.e., family partition deed, certificate of genealogy issued by the Circle Officer, Godda and also the copy of voter list, does not appear to be a good order in view of the fact that he is not the competent authority to verify as to whether the adoption deed is genuine or not. In the similar matter, the orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer and the Settlement Officer have also no bearing in view of the fact that they have 2026:JHHC:9137 6 decided a factual issue; accordingly, any order passed pursuant to the order passed by A.S.O./S.O./Commissioner will not take effect unless and until it is decided by a competent court of civil jurisdiction as to whether the petitioner is a son of Late Mr. Saryu Singh. 14. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of by quashing the order impugned only to the extent that he has given finding on facts. Simultaneously, this Court also opine that all the previous orders has also no effect in view of the fact that this is a disputed question of fact which can be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction and any party claiming anything will have to move to the Civil Court for proper adjudication. 15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ application stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) APRIL 01, 2026 vikas/- uploaded 20/04/2026