2026:JHHC:3634 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.845 of 2026 Harihar Prasad Singh, aged about 72 years Son of Late Jai Prakash Singh, Resident of Village Kitadih, Gadiwan Patti, near Model English High School, P.O Kitadih, P.S Parsudih, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, 2. Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, at Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand 3. Anchal Adhikari, Jugsallai-cum-Golmuri at Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Parsudih District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand 4. Anchal Amin, Jugsallai-cum-Golmuri at Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Parsudih District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand 5. Amresh Kumar, 6. Umesh Kumar, Both sons of Late Ram Pyare Prasad, Resident of Village Kitadih, Gadiwan Patti, near Model English High School, P.O. Kitadih, P.S. Parsudih, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. …... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. A. N. Deo, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. M. K. Dubey, AC to AG -------- 02/Dated: 11 th February, 2026 1. Heard Learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief :- “(a) for quashing of the order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Respondent No. 2 in Misc. Case No. 68/2025-26 (Harihar Prasad Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand), enclosed herein in Annexure-5 dated 17.10.2025 passed by Respondent No. 2, the Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder proceeding of the said Misc. Case No. 68/2025-26 for measurement of the said land with respect to Khata - 1 - W.P.(C) No.845 of 2026 2026:JHHC:3634 No. 264 Plot No. 1353, 1353/1737 total area 0.17 acres was closed without hearing the petitioner behind his back, as well as, without proper compliance of the direction issued by this High Court in W.P.(C) No. 5791 of 2016 dated 4th April 2018 stating that there is land dispute with a view to circumvent the contempt proceeding and upon return of the Rule and after consideration of the show cause filed the respondent no. 2 the Rule may be made absolute against the respondents directing the Respondent No. 2, 3 and Respondent No. 4 to measure the land in presence of the petitioner, as well as, in presence of the Respondent No. 5 & 6.” 3. The description of land is as follows :- “Khata No. 264 Plot No. 1353, 1353/1737 total area 0.17 acres.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that that the petitioner is trying to get his land measured since 2015 and for which various rounds of litigation has been made. It has further been submitted that the Circle Officer has such power and he is under duty to measure the land on deposit of the required amount. 5. The law, on the issue, is well settled that the Circle Officer only functions as a service provider and not as an adjudicating authority. There is no statutory provision authorising the Circle Officer to adjudicate disputes relating to measurement or demarcation of land. The Circle Officer performs measurement only in terms of executive instructions, upon receipt of prescribed fees, as a service. 6. The said position has already been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 14.11.2024 passed in L.P.A. No. 399 of 2023, wherein it has been held that the cabinet decision, fixing fees for land demarcation by a survey team, makes no mention of conferring any power to the Circle Officer to undertake demarcation of private properties and had also held that the learned Single Judge was in error to hold that the Circle - 2 - W.P.(C) No.845 of 2026 2026:JHHC:3634 Officers have jurisdiction to conduct demarcation on application upon payment of requisite fees, because the cabinet decision itself did not confer such power. 7. In the present case, there is dispute with the private respondents, who have been made party as respondent Nos.5 & 6. Since, the Circle Officer is not an adjudicator, he cannot be asked to measure the land, if any claim has been raised by one or other party. If there is any dispute between the parties, then it can be resolved only and only by the competent Civil Court. Further, no provision of law has been brought to the notice of this Court whereby the Circle Officer has been vested with powers or duties to adjudicate such disputes. 8. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to entertain the present writ petition. Accordingly, the same is, hereby, dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy in accordance with law. 9. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 11th February, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/- Uploaded on 12.02.2026 - 3 - W.P.(C) No.845 of 2026