2026:JHHC:12361 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 2998 of 2026 ------- Sushil Dutta Dwary, aged about 71 years, S/o Late Jaidhar Dutta Dwary, resident of Kekai Dharamshala, Bilasi Town, P.O. Deoghar, P.S. B. Deoghar, District Deoghar. .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. & District Deoghar 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. & District Deoghar 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Deoghar Municipal Corporation, P.O., P.S. & District Deoghar 5. The Circle Officer, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. & District Deoghar … Respondents. ------- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, Advocate Mr. Sahja Nand Saraswati, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Sonal Jaiswal, AC to AG M/s. Shreyanshi Shekhar, AC to AG ------ 03/ 28.04.2026: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that his land was not properly measured as per the khatiyan and the village map. He submits that though the respondents admit that the rivulet (nala) has not been encroached by the petitioner but the fact that the area of the land was found only 1250 sq. ft. cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the petitioner has purchased 2671 sq. ft. of land. 3. After hearing the parties, I find that though vide document at page-39 of the writ petition the respondents have admitted that the rivulet is not within the land of the petitioner rather it is adjacent to the land of the petitioner but the fact which has been highlighted by the Circle Officer, Deoghar in the aforesaid document is that as per the sale deed, the petitioner has purchased 2671 sq. ft. of land but as per the Town Planning Map apart from the rivulet only 1250 sq. ft. of land is remaining. 4. If the Town Planning Map is taken to be corrected then from where the petitioner has purchased the extra land is unknown. These all are disputed question of facts, which needs to be addressed by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. This Court cannot enter into this factual aspect by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the land of the petitioner needs to be identified and the actual land has to be measured and it has to be compared with the sale deed and the documents available with the respondents as to whether any land beyond 1250 sq. ft. has been purchased by the petitioner or not. Thus, no order can be passed in this writ petition considering the nature of relief as sought for and the disputed question of facts. It is open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court. 5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 28th April, 2026 Madhav/- Uploaded on: 11/05/2026 -2-