2026:JHHC:17709 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(C) No.3529 of 2021 ----- 1. Murti Devi, Aged About 85 years, W/O Late Jagdish Mahto 2. Triveni Kumar Yadav, Aged About 23 years, S/O Late Jagdish Mahto All residents of House No. 07, Village Harlajori, P.O. Rishiya, P.S. Mohanpur, District Deoghar, Jharkhand … Petitioner(s). Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Revenue & Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O & P.S Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O., P.S & Dist Deoghar, 3. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O., P.S Deoghar & District Deoghar, Jharkhand 4. The Circle Officer, Mohanpur, P.O. & P.S Mohanpur, District Deoghar, Jharkhand … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Kr. Trivedi, Advocate Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA-III Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, AC to GA-III …...... 11 /18.06.2026: Heard the learned counsel representing the petitioners and the learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. The petitioners have filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: “a. For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to restrict and remove the ongoing illegal construction of Karmchari Bhawan over the landed property of the petitioners bearing Plot No. 131 under Mauza Harilajodi, Circle Mohanpur, District Deoghar admeasuring an area of 16 decimals which was settled in favour of Late Jagdish Mahto way back in the year 1965. And/or 2026:JHHC:17709 2 b. For the issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/ orders, direction/ directions or a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to mutate the landed property bearing Plot No. 131 under Mauza Harilajodi, Circle Mohanpur, District Deoghar admeasuring an area of 16 decimals was settled in favour of Late Jagdish Mahto and issue rent receipt to the petitioners as the petitioners are owners of the land and have peaceful possession over the land. And/or c. Pass such other order/orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances doing conscionable justice to the petitioners.” 3. After hearing the parties, I find that it is an admitted case that the land was settled in favour of the petitioners but the respondents claimed that the settlement was only for the period of 5 years. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since as per the terms the land was not used for 5 years the same was repossessed. 5. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the respondents have entered over the land bearing Plot No. 131, Mauza Harilajodi, Circle Mohanpur, District Deoghar admeasuring an area of 16 decimals and thereafter had made construction for residential purpose of the employees of the State. 6. The question whether the land was used for 5 years or not or whether he was dispossessed is an essential question of facts which needs to be proved by the parties by leading oral and/or documentary evidence. This type of dispute cannot be adjudicated in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners first have to establish his right, title and interest over the property in question and then if it is found that he has got right, title and interest over the property then only appropriate order can be passed in favour of the petitioner. In this case admittedly the petitioners have been dispossessed. All these question of facts 2026:JHHC:17709 3 needs to be adjudicated by the proper Civil Court where evidence can be adduced. 7. Considered the aforesaid fact, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. This writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate Civil Court having competent jurisdiction, claiming an appropriate relief. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 18.06.2026 Tanuj/CP-2 Uploaded on 24.06.2026