2026:JHHC:16354 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5244 of 2012 ------ 1(a) Akhil Prasad Mandal 1(b) Nikhil Prasad Mandal 1(c) Arun Kumar All sons of Late Basudeo Prasad Mandal @ Basudeo Mandal All resident of Village & P.O. Dhanbai, P.S. Hansdiha, District Dumka 1(d) Pushpalata Kumari, daughter of Late Basudeo Prasad Mandal @ Basudeo Mandal, wife of Sri Amrendra Kumar, resident of Village & P.O. Hilabai, P.S. Basantrai, District Godda 1(e) Sneha Bharti, daughter of Late Basudeo Prasad Mandal @ Basudeo Mandal, resident of Village & P.O. Dhanbai, P.S. Hansdiha, District Dumka .... .... …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, P.O., P.S. and District Dumka 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, P.O., P.S. and District Dumka 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Dumka, P.O., P.S. and District Dumka 5. Jiwan Prasad Mandal 6. Manmohan Mandal 7. Ghanshyam Mandal Sl. Nos.5 to 7, all sons of Late Lakhi Mandal and residents of Village and P.O Dhanbay, S.C. Kasba, P.S. Hansdiha, District Dumka, Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners : Mr. Jai Prakash Jha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate For the Respondents-State : Mr. Vineet Prakash, A.C. to S.C. IV. For the Res. Nos. 5 to 7 : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Nishant Kumar Roy, Advocate (Through Video Conferencing) ------ 19/08.06.2026 Heard Mr. Jai Prakash Jha, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Vineet Prakash, learned counsel for the respondents-State and Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing through video conference for respondent nos.5, 6 and 7. 2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the revisional order dated 15.06.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in R.M.R. No.492/1985-86 whereby the appellate order dated 12.12.1985 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka in R.M.A. No.234/1983-84 and the order dated 05.09.1983 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dumka in 2026:JHHC:16354 2 R.E. Case No.124/1981-82 have been set aside. 3. Mr. Jai Prakash Jha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the land comprised within Plot No.268 measuring an area of 05 Katha 15 Dhoor appertaining to Gantzer’s Jamanabdi No.9 of Mouza Dhanbay stands recorded as Makan Sahan in the Gantzer’s Settlement Record of Rights in the name of Lakhi Mandal (Predecessor-in-interest of the private respondent nos.5 to 7). He next submits that lands comprised within Plot No.42 bearing Jamabandi No.11 situate at Mouza Pagwara Paschim Pattist recorded in the name of Ganpati Mandal (deceased father of this petitioner). 4. He next submits that Lakhi Mandal and Ganpati Mandal are cousin brothers being descendants of the common ancestor and were thus agnates. According to him, on account of mutual convenience and by way of family arrangements, Ganpati Mandal, the recorded raiyat of Plot No.42 of Mouza Pagwara Pashchim Patti and Lakhi Mandal, the recorded Raiyat of Plot No.268 of Mouza Dhanbay aforesaid mutually exchanged their plots sometime in the year 1940-41. He submits that by way of family arrangement, Ganpati Mandal (deceased father of this petitioner) came in possession of homestead land of Plot No.268 having an area of 05 Katha 15 Dhoor appertaining to Gantzer’s Jamabandi No.9 of Mouza Dhanbay whereas Lakhi Mandal came in possession of Plot no.42 bearing Jamabandi No.11 of Mouza Pagwara Pashchim Patti and since then the parties are in such possession since 1940-41. According to him, Plot No.268 of Mouza Dhanbay was recorded as Makan Sahan i.e. Homestead and as such it was out of the purview of Section 42 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949. In this background, he submits that original applicant- Lakhi Mandal has instituted R.E. Case No.124/1981-82 in the court of Sub Divisional Officer, Dumka for eviction. 5. He submits that in the said case the petitioner has been noticed and the petitioner appeared and filed his show cause and after hearing both the sides, the Sub Divisional Dumka dismissed R.E. Case No.124/1981-82 by order dated 05.09.1983. He next submits that respondent nos.5 to 7 herein preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka being R.M.A. No.234/1983-84. He further submits 2026:JHHC:16354 3 that learned Deputy Commissioner has also been pleased to dismiss the appeal by the order dated 12.12.1985. Thereafter, respondent nos.5 to 7 preferred revision before the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka which was registered as Revenue Misc. Revision No.R.M.R. No.492/1985-86. He submits that learned Commissioner has set aside the order of Sub Divisional Officer and Deputy Commissioner only on conjectures and surmises and has not appreciated the law and set aside the judgments passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and the Deputy Commissioner. He submits that report of Kanungo brought in the rejoinder of the counter affidavit clearly stipulates that the house has been constructed and the petitioner is residing there with family. He again emphasized the fact that mutual agreement has taken place and both the parties are agnates and in pursuant to that the petitioner along with his family are residing in the said house and said land is Masaurhi and for Masaurhi land there is no need of taking permission under the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 from the Deputy Commissioner. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order of the Commissioner, may kindly be set aside. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents-State submits that the learned Commissioner has rightly passed the order looking into Gantzer’s Parcha of JB No.9 of Mouza Dhanay, certified copy of final Parcha of JB No.60 (new) of Mouza Dhanay, certified copy of Gantzer’s Parcha of JB No.60, new Mouza Dhanbey, certified copy of Gantzer’s Parcha of JB No.11 of mouza Pagwara Passchim Patti, registered partition document no.566 dated 07.02.1986, sketch map of Plot No.268 and 269 of the petitioner and Plot No.267 of the opposite party and written notes of the argument. He submits that in the light of those documents, it has not been proved that the said land is of Masaurhi. He submits that even if they were agnates for such steps, the parties were required to act in the light of Section 23 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949. He submits that learned Commissioner has rightly considered this aspect of the matter that when the partition deed was there and 50% of the property has already been shared it is not believable that on the oral exchange the land in question has been handed over to the petitioner. On these grounds, he submits 2026:JHHC:16354 4 that the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 7. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing through video conferencing on behalf of respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 submits that Lakhi Mandal and Ganpati Mandal were cousin brothers being descendants of the common ancestor and were thus agnates, but it is wrong to say that on account of mutual convenience and by way of family arrangements, Ganpati Mandal, the recorded raiyat of Plot No.42 of Mouza Pagwara Pashchim Patti and Lakhi Mandal, the recorded Raiyat of Plot No.268 of Mouza Dhanbay mutually exchanged their plots sometime in the year 1940-41. He also submits that false statement is made that by way of any family arrangement, Ganpati Mandal (deceased father of this petitioner) came in possession of land of Plot No.268 having an area of 05 Katha 15 Dhoor appertaining to Gantzer’s Jamabandi No.9 of Mouza Dhanbay whereas Lakhi Mandal came in possession of Plot no.42 bearing Jamabandi No.11 of Mouza Pagwara Pashchim Patti and parties are in such possession since 1940-41. He submits that there is no exchange and family arrangement for the area of 05 Katha 15 Dhoor of Plot No.268 between Lakhi Mandal and Ganpati Mandal and that is false. He submits that in the Gantzer’s Settlement Record of Rights the name of Lakhi Mandal, the father of respondent nos.5 to 7 have been recorded. He submits that the said land is agricultural land and it is a creation of the petitioner that the said land is homestead land. He submits that the learned Commissioner has considered the documents Gantzer’s Parcha of JB No.9 of Mouza Dhanay, certified copy of final Parcha of JB No.60 (new) of Mouza Dhanay, certified copy of Gantzer’s Parcha of JB No.60, new Mouza Dhanbey, certified copy of Gantzer’s Parcha of JB No.11 of mouza Pagwara Passchim Patti, registered partition document no.566 dated 07.02.1986, sketch map of Plot No.268 and 269 of the petitioners and Plot No.267 of the opposite party and written notes of the argument. He draws the attention of the court to the partition deed contained in Annexure A of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 and submits that the said partition deed is a registered document and in view of that 50% of the property has already been provided to the petitioners herein. He submits that there is no single chit of paper to suggest that the land in question was exchanged and transferred and any 2026:JHHC:16354 5 family arrangement was made. He draws the attention of the court to Annexure B and C annexed with the counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 and submits that in the Gantzer’s settlement and recent survey settlement, the name of Lakhi Mandal, who is father of respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 are reflected. He also refers to Annexure D annexed in the counter affidavit and submits that recent rent receipt also in the name of Lakhi Mandal and others. He further draws the attention of the court to Annexure E which is Gantzer’s Jamabandi No.11 of Plot No.11 and submits that it is in the name of Ganpati Mandal and others. Referring these documents, Mr. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel submits that the plea of the petitioners that the land is Masaurhi land and for that no permission is required, is misconceived. He submits that in view of that learned Commissioner has rightly passed the order and directed the Sub Divisional Officer to take recourse of Sections 20 and 42 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949. On these grounds, he submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 8. In view of the submission of learned counsel for the parties, the court has gone through the materials on record and finds that admittedly there is no document on the record to suggest that any family arrangement has taken place between the parties. Mr. Jay Prakash Jha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has fairly admittedly that it was an oral exchange/family arrangement. Thus, how the exchange has taken place it is not proved except by way of the submission that it was the oral agreement. On the other hand, the registered partition deed between the parties clearly suggests that the partition has taken place and it is an admitted position that both the sides are agnates, has also been admitted in para 8 of the counter affidavit of respondent nos.5, 6 and 7. The documents as annexed in the counter affidavit of the respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 being Gantzer’s Parcha of JB No.9 of Mouza Dhanay, certified copy of final Parcha of JB No.60 (new) of Mouza Dhanay, certified copy of Gantzer’s Parcha of JB No.60, new Mouza Dhanbey, certified copy of Gantzer’s Parcha of JB No.11 of mouza Pagwara Passchim Patti, registered partition document no.566 dated 07.02.1986, sketch map of Plot No.268 and 269 of the petitioners and Plot No.267 of the opposite party clearly suggest that the said land till date, is 2026:JHHC:16354 6 in the name of Lakhi Mandal, who was the father of respondent nos.5, 6 and 7. Annexure E is a document which clearly suggests Mouza Pagwara Paschim Patti land was recorded in the name of Ganpati Mandal. 9. Section 23 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 clearly stipulates any exchange of Raiyati land, permission of Deputy Commissioner, is required. The case of the petitioners is that the said land was exchanged/family arrangement was made between the parties however, even if such submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is accepted, it is not valid for non- compliance of Section 23 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949. There is no doubt that if the land is homestead and residential then Section 42 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 will not apply, however, the case of the petitioners is that by way of exchange and family arrangement, the petitioners have constructed the house on the said land. It is not proved that was homestead land since the inception. Thus, the contention of the petitioner is that the said land is not coming within the purview of Section 42 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949, is not tenable. 10. In the light of above facts, reasons and analysis, the court finds that the learned Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka has rightly passed the order considering the documents which clearly suggests that the land was Raiyati and pursuant to registered partition deed 50% of the property has already been provided to the petitioners. It has not been proved that any exchange of family arrangement has already been taken place. As such this writ petition is hereby, dismissed. Pending I.A. if any, is disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Anit A.F.R. Uploaded 12.06.2026