( 2026:JHHC:12671 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (C) No. 3423 of 2020 ----- Dr. Chandrahas Kant Choudhary, son of late Padmakant Choudhary, resident of Tokari Tola, Lake View, Kanke Road, P.S.-Gonda, P.O. Ranchi College (834008), through his Power of Attorney Holder Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal, S/o Late Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, Resident of Upper Burdwan Compound, Near Debuka Nursing Home, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, Town and District-Ranchi. … Petitioner(s). Versus 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary to the Government of Jharkhand, Forest Department, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand). 3. Conservator of Forest, P.O. Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand). 4. Divisional Forest Officer, P.O. Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand). … Respondent(s). 5. The Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 6. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi having its office at Administrative Building, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi. 7. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ranchi, P.O. Kanke, P.S. Gonda, District-Ranchi. 8. Circle Officer, Kanke Anchal, P.O. & P.S. Kanke, District Ranchi. ….Proforma Respondents CORAM :SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, G.P.-III …...... 13/29.04.2026: 1. Heard the parties. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner prays for mandamus upon the respondents, especially respondent nos. 2 to 4, to not to disturb peaceful possession of the petitioner over 3.5 acres of land, out of which 2.44 acres is in Plot no. 674 and 1.06 acres is in Plot no. 664 of R.S. Khata No. 153 situated at Village Barhu, Thana Khata No. 25 and further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to abide by the judgment and decree passed in Title ( 2026:JHHC:12671 ) 2 Suit No. 64 of 2002. Further there is a prayer to remove the aforesaid land from restricted list which has been uploaded on the website of the Department of Revenue Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner at the very outset submits that the prayer no. 1(b)(a) regarding restricted list has already been addressed in a separate writ petition by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C). NO. 5088 of 2018 titled “Chotanagpur Diocesan Trust Association (CNDTA) and another vs. State of Jharkhand and others” and analogous cases vide order dated 01.05.2025 whereby the prohibited list has been set aside. 4. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as prayer no. 1(b)(a) has already been redressed, it is expected that the Revenue Authorities will remove the name of the petitioner from the restricted list as the entire restricted list has been set aside by the Division Bench in WP(C) No. 5088 of 2018. 5. So far as the other two prayers are concerned, the facts are admitted in this case. There was some dispute in respect of the land of R.S. Khata No. 153 of Plot No. 664, Sub-Plot 664-A area 1.06 acres and Plot No. 774 Sub-Plot No. 774/B area 2.44 acres which according to the petitioner is a self-acquired property. 6. The land in Khata No. 153 was settled in favour of one, Janak Singh. Janak Singh was admitted as a tenant and the land was also mutated in his favour in Mutation Case No. 62 R8-II/1962-63. Janak Singh sold out the land measuring 3.50 area to Deb Narayan Mallick, S/o Bhutnath Mallick, Kanke Road, out of legal necessity by virtue of registered deed No. 2912 dated 30.03.1982. This purchaser also got the name mutated in Mutation Case No. 507 R 27 /1990-91. Construction was also made by the said purchaser. The land was again sold by Deb Narayan Mallick to the petitioner. 7. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in the year 2001, the Forest Department of the State stated interfering with the possession of ( 2026:JHHC:12671 ) 3 this petitioner for which a Criminal Case was also filed. The Forest Department claimed ownership over the land in question. Having no other alternative, the petitioner filed a suit before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction at Ranchi. The said suit was numbered as Title Suit No. 64 of 2002. In the said suit, the defendants i.e. the State and the Forest Department did not choose to appear and after completion of all the formalities, the Suit was heard and decided ex-parte. Vide a detailed judgment dated 27.11.2006, the Sub Judge II at Ranchi decreed the suit in favour of this petitioner. 8. The said judgment and the decree was challenged by the State and the other respondents in Title Appeal No. 26 of 2008. As there was 448 days delay in filing the Appeal, the Appellate Court vide order dated 04.08.2010 rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the appeal also stood dismissed as time barred. The aforesaid order was not challenged before any higher authority. In view of the dismissal of the appeal by the State, the decree passed in Title Suit No. 64 of 2002 stood affirmed and attained finality as there is no other proceeding pending. 9. It is the grievance of this petitioner that in spite of the judgment in the suit, wherein the title has been declared in favour of the petitioner, the respondent/State is continuously interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the decree passed by the Civil Court is ex-parte and the title of the petitioner is doubtful. He also admits that appeal against the ex- parte judgment filed by the State has already been dismissed. 11. Admittedly, the Title Suit filed by this petitioner was decreed in his favour, though ex-parte. The judgment is a detailed reasoned judgment wherein the Trial Court has held that the plaintiff has got valid right, title and interest over the suit property. His possession was also duly confirmed. Once the right, title and interest of the property in question is declared in favour of the plaintiff, the State, who was a party to the suit, cannot take any other measures which ( 2026:JHHC:12671 ) 4 may amount to interference with the right, title, interest and possession of the petitioner. 12. Though the decree was an ex-parte decree, but there is no difference between an ex-parte decree and the decree passed on contest. When the process of summon of service was duly followed and the defendants did not choose to appear, the Court have no other alternative than to proceed against the State ex-parte. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Vijay Singh vs. Shanti Devi & Another” reported in (2017) 8 SCC 837 at paragraph 12 has held as under:- 12. We are only concerned with clause (a), which provides that if summons are duly served and the defendant does not put in appearance, the court may make an order that the suit would be heard ex parte. In this case, this was the procedure followed and an ex parte decree was passed. There is no manner of doubt that an ex parte decree is also a valid decree. It has the same force as a decree which is passed on contest. As long as the ex parte decree is not recalled or set aside, it is legal and binding upon the parties. 13. In this connection, it is also necessary to be noted that the appeal preferred by the State also stood dismissed on the ground of delay and neither any second appeal was preferred by the State, nor any step was taken at any point of time to recall the ex-parte decree. Once the judgment of the Civil Court has attained finality, the parties, especially when one of the party is the State, is expected to honour the same. They are bound by the decree. They cannot take a circuitous route and start interfering with the possession and title of the petitioner. 14. Thus, in view of the judgment passed by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and the dismissal of the appeal, which has attained finality, I am of the view that the State by any means cannot interfere with the right, title, interest and the possession of the petitioner. ( 2026:JHHC:12671 ) 5 15. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. 16. The respondents are injuncted from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land which was the subject matter of suit being Title Suit No. 64 of 2002. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 29.04.2026 Rashmi/- Uploaded on:-15.05.2026