2026:JHHC:8183 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5461 of 2021 -- Isidore Tirkey aged about 73 years son of Emil Tirkey, resident of village Malti, P.O. Tetri, P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi .... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi 3. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi 4. Additional Collector, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi 5. Rent Suit Deputy Collector, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi 6. Circle Officer, Namkum, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi 7. Ashok Pahan 8. Nirmal Pahan, Both sons of Late Basu Pahan 9. Nirmal Pahan son of Late Niranjan Pahan Respondent nos. 7 to 9 residents of village Malti, P.O. Tetri, P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi 10.Asha Ekka wife of Isidore Tirkey resident of village Malti, P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi ....Respondents -- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Kishore Kr.Singh, S.C.-V For the Resp. Nos. 7 to 9 : Mr. Ashok Kr. Pandey, Advocate -- 25/19.03.2026 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order dated 09.03.2011, passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi in Miscellaneous Appeal no. 02 R 15 of 2010-11 (Annexure-4); whereby the 4th Respondent passed an ex parte order allowing the appeal filed by the father of the respondent nos. 7 & 8, namely Basu Pahan since deceased and the respondent no. 9 and set aside the order dated 16.10.2009 passed by Rent Suit Deputy Collector, Ranchi in Permission 2026:JHHC:8183 2 Case No. 2024 R 08 II/2008-09 granting permission under Section 46 of CNT Act for transfer of lands measuring an area 1.28 acre appertaining to R.S. Plot no. 249 of Khata no. 9 situated at village Malti, P.O. Tetri, P.S Namkum in the district of Ranchi in favour of the petitioner and proforma respondent no. 10, for which a sale deed was also executed and registered on 28.04.2010. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 11.10.2021 passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in Miscellaneous Revision No. 44 of 2017 dismissing the revision of the petitioner herein. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner being a tribal person, after taking proper permission from the concerned authority under Section 46 of C.N.T Act purchased the property in question. Thereafter, the sale deed was duly executed in his favour on 28.04.2010 and pursuant thereto, the land was also mutated in his favour. 3. Further facts reveal that thereafter the private respondents (Respondent nos. 7 to 9) filed an application before the Additional Collector, Land Revenue, Ranchi for cancelling the permission alleging that the permission was obtained by fraud. The said case was decided in favour of private respondents. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner herein challenged the same before the Revisional Court, which 2026:JHHC:8183 3 also upheld the order of Additional Collector, Land Revenue and rejected the application of the petitioner. 4. The sole contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the private respondents have already filed a title suit for cancelling the title deed, which was registered on 28.04.2010 being Title Suit no. 284 of 2011 on the ground that the permission which was taken by the petitioner in Permission Case no. 2024 R 08 II/2008-09 was obtained fraudulently in view of the fact that the petitioner does not belong to the same village which is a condition precedent for granting permission under Section 46 of the CNT Act. He further submits that even accepting the claim of the respondents; admittedly, the grievance of the petitioner revolves on disputed question of fact for which he had already approached the trial Court; therefore, the order passed by the Additional Collector, Rent Revenue and the Commissioner in allowing the claim of the respondents on the ground that the permission granted by Rent Suit Deputy Collector, Ranchi has been obtained fraudulently is unwarranted because the said officers have no jurisdiction to decide the factual dispute. 5. 5. In response to the above, learned counsel for the private respondents tried to justify the order and submits that there is no error in both the orders and both have given a concurrent finding that the petitioner does not 2026:JHHC:8183 4 belong to that particular village and the concerned officials had rightly acceded to the demand of the respondents that the sale deed which was executed fraudulently is null and void and the property was a joint property. 6. He further submits that in order to resolve the dispute the private respondents have also filed a title suit; as such, the petitioner should not have any grievance because the title suit is still pending and that will decide the case. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and the averments made therein; admittedly, a sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner and duly registered on 28.04.2010 after taking permission under Section 46 of CNT Act for transfer of lands measuring an area 1.28 acres appertaining to R.S. Plot no. 249 of Khata no. 9 situated at village Malti, P.O. Tetri, P.S Namkum, District Ranchi and thereafter the petitioner applied for mutation that was also completed. It is also an undisputed fact that the private respondents have filed a title suit and also preferred an application before the Additional Collector, Land Revenue for cancelling the order granting permission. 8. From the records, it further transpires that the main ground either in the title suit or before the Additional Collector, Land Revenue, it is only that the petitioner does not belong to the same village and by giving wrong facts 2026:JHHC:8183 5 before the concerned officer i.e., Rent Suit Deputy Collector, he had obtained the permission fraudulently. 9. Though, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has also argued and tried to impress this Court by referring several documents that the petitioner was of the same village and he has not committed any fraud, but the fact remains; when the matter is pending before the civil court of competent jurisdiction and the private respondents have already filed a title suit being Title Suit no. 284 of 2011, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Additional Collector, Land Revenue as well as the Commissioner under revisional capacity should not have given any finding on the question of fact because the law is no more res integra that the disputed question of fact can only be decided by the trial court. Even this Court having jurisdiction under Article 226 has no right to decide the claim of either of the parties. Thus, both the Additional Collector, Land Revenue and the Revisional Court have exceeded its jurisdiction by giving finding on facts when the matter is sub judice before the Ld. trial court. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, the impugned orders dated 09.03.2011 passed by Additional Collector, Ranchi and 11.10.2021 passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, are hereby, quashed and set aside. Learned trial court is at 2026:JHHC:8183 6 liberty to proceed in the matter, in accordance with law, without getting prejudice either from the order passed by the Additional Collector, Land Revenue or the Revisional Court. 11. It is made clear that this court has not given any finding on the question of fact. Therefore, the trial court shall proceed independently on the basis of evidence and the documents produced before him, in accordance with law. 12. Accordingly, the instant application stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 19th March, 2026 Jk Uploaded on 06/04/2026