2026:JHHC:15112 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3684 of 2026 ------ 1. Sk. Azmafar alias Md. Ajanfar, aged about 79 years. 2. Sk. Ehsan alias Md. Ehsan, aged about 79 years. Both sons of Late Md. Ismaeel. 3. Sakina Bibi, alias Bibi Sakina, aged about 64 years, wife of late Md. Murtaza. 4. Md. Mahboob Alam, aged about 42 years. 5. Md. Mahtab Alam, aged about 39 years. Both petitioner No.4 & 5 sons of Late Md. Murtaza. 6. Rasidan Bibi aged about 88 years, D/o Late Md. Ismaeel. 7. Juleka Bibi, aged about 83 years, Widow of Late Md. Gani. 8. Md. Mahmood, aged about 62 years. 9. Md. Khalid, aged about 49 years. 10. Md. Khushrang, aged about 43 years. 11. Md. Chhotu alias Md. Tofik, aged about 34 years. All petitioners No.8, 9, 10 & 11 sons of Late Md. Gani. 12. Md. Kalam, aged about 80 years, son of Late Rustam Khan. 13. Noorbano Bibi, aged about 59 years, widow of Late Ali Mohammad. 14. Aleha Bibi, aged about 43 years, widow of Late Babujan. 15. Md. Shahjahan alias Shahsha Khan, aged about 32 years. 16. Md. Badshah alias Badshah Khan, aged about 32 years. Both petitioner No.15 & 16 sons of late Babujan. 17. Md. Jalil @ Bablu, aged about 50 years. 18. Md. Nasim, aged about 44 years. Both petitioner No.17 & 18 sons of Late Mohit Khan @ Moid Khan. 19. Md. Noor Alam, aged about 47 years. 20. Md. Mustak, aged about 35 years. 21. Md. Imran, aged about 32 years. 22. Md. Ashar, aged about 32 years. All petitioner Nos.19, 20, 21 & 22 sons of Late Md. Mazid, All Residents of village Pathrakundi, PO & PS-Kathikund, Subdivision and District-Dumka. 23. Md. Jiyaul, aged about 53 years, son of Late Abu Samad. 24. Subedan Bibi, aged about 82 years, widow of Late Md. Abu Samad, Both petitioner No.23 & 24, resident of Kumharpara, PO & PS- Dumka Town Sub division and District-Dumka. … … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi, PO & PS-Dhurwa, Jharkhand. 2. The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, PO & PS- Dumka Town, Jharkhand. 3. The Settlement Officer, Santhal Pargana, Dumka, PO & PS- Dumka Town, Jharkhand. 4. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Dumka, PO & PS-Dumka Town, Jharkhand. 5. Sk. Ayub, aged not known to petitioner. 6. Sk. Sahim, age not known to the petitioner. Both respondent No.5 & 6 sons of late Md. Samsul Haque. 7. Sk. Sakur, age not known to the petitioner. 2026:JHHC:15112 Page | 2 8. Sk. Mohit, age not known to petitioner. 9. Asra Khatun, age not known to petitioner. 10. Aarfa Khatun, age not known to petitioner Both respondent No.9 & 10, daughters of late Sk. Kayum. 11. Amina Bibi, age not known to petitioner, wife of late Sk. Samsul. 12. Samina Bibi, age not known to petitioner, wife of late Sk. Kayum. 13. Md. Alim, age not known to petitioner. 14. Md. Kalim, age not known to petitioner, Both respondent No.13 & 14, sons of Late Sk. Sattar. All respondent No.5 to 14 are resident of Kumharpara, PO & PS- Dumka Town Subdivision and District-Dumka. … … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ayush, Advocate Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rai, Advocate ------ 02/ 15th May, 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that based on an erroneous genealogy, the petitioners have been deprived from the property and names of ancestors of the petitioners have been removed from Column No.4 of corresponding Khatiyan of Jamabandi No.29 (old 35) of Mouza Sri Amra having Khata No.29 within Dumka Mufassil P.S. Dighi of Subdivision and District Dumka admeasuring 14 acres and 50 decimals. 3. After hearing the parties, I find that the main grievance of the petitioners is in respect of the genealogical table of the ancestors. All the three Revenue Authorities have passed the order against the petitioners. 4. The dispute is essentially a factual dispute wherein, one of issue is what is the correct genealogy of the ancestors of the petitioners and who has inherited the property in question. This dispute cannot be decided in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners, if so advised, may approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for an appropriate relief. 5. Thus, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, 2026:JHHC:15112 Page | 3 prayed for interim relief as they claim that the respondents are disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioners. 7. So far as the prayer of the petitioners are concerned, once the Court declines to entertain a writ petition in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is impermissible to the Court to pass any interim order, thus no interim relief can be granted, at this stage. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Mangal Rajendra Kamthe Vs. Tahsildar, Purandhar & Ors.” reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 297, at para-6, has held as hereunder:- “6. It is settled law that once the High Court, upon application of mind, declines to entertain a writ petition in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction on the ground that an efficacious alternative remedy for grant of relief is available but such remedy has not been pursued by the petitioner, the proceedings do not survive and must draw to an end then and there; however, in such a circumstance when no final relief can effectively be granted on the petition, it is impermissible to pass an order in the nature of an interim relief [either by granting stay of operation of the order under challenge or by directing status quo to be maintained] till such time the aggrieved petitioner approaches the alternative forum. Such an order, as and when passed, would be in the teeth of a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in State of Orissa V. Madan Gopal Rungta.” 9. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. 10. Pending IAs, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 15.05.2026 S.K.D/CP-2 Uploaded on 16.05.2026