2026:JHHC:2533 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 3854 of 2022 --------- 1. Mustakim Ansari, aged about 48 years, S/o-Budhan Miyan. 2. Tahir Ansari, aged about 48 years, S/o-Late Sukar Miyan. Both are residents of Bijaypur, P.O. & P.S.-Saria, District-Giridih. ....Petitioners Versus 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. Commissioner North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S. and District-Hazaribagh. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Giridih. 4. SDO Bagodar, Saria, P.O. & P.S.-Sariya, Giridih. 5. Circle Officer, Saria, P.O. & P.S.-Saria, Giridih. 6. Officer in charge Saria, P.O. & P.S.-Sariya, Giridih. 7. Mahesh Prasad Verma, Father-Jagdish Prasad Kushwaha, R/o- Dakbangla Road, P.O. & P.S.-Saria, Dist.-Giridih. 8. Bhuvneshwer Yadav, S/o-Late Bandhan Mahto. 9. Arjun Yadav, S/o-Late Bandhan Mahto. 10. Smt. Parvati Devi, W/o-Lakshman Ravidas. 11. Narayan Ravidas, S/o-Late Lakshman Ravidas. All are residents of Nawadih, P.O. & P.S.-Gagodar, Saria, Dist.- Giridih. ....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalyan Roy, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. Sunita Kumari, A.C. to Sr.S.C.-II Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate Md. Abdul Wahab, Advocate Mr. Shyam Sundar Pd. Kushwaha, Advocate --------- 14/Dated:-29.01.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Though initially, the writ application was preferred by the petitioners praying therein for the following relief: For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs commanding upon the respondents to verify and ascertain as to whether the respondents has rightly handed over the suit land in favour of Respondent no.-7 or the land which possession was given belongs to the petitioners. And further if it is found that the possession was given of the land which is not the suit land in that case the respondents be directed to hand over the land in question in favour of the petitioners. And further restrain the respondents from erecting boundary wall and any other construction over the land in question. 3. However, after passage of time, learned counsel for the 2026:JHHC:2533 2 petitioners confined his prayer only to the extent that the competent authority shall demarcate the land of which they are the owner. 4. Learned counsel for the private respondents submits that the petitioners are having confusion and the demarcation has already been made pursuant to the Compromise Decree dated 03.06.2002 passed in Title Suit No. 127 of 2001. 5. Having regard to the rival contention and also the fair submission of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the private respondents, interest of justice would be sufficed by directing the concerned respondent-Circle Officer to demarcate the land once again, strictly in accordance with Compromise Decree dated 03.06.2002 passed in Title Suit No. 127 of 2001 and ensure that if the petitioners are entitled for certain portion of land, that should be clearly demarcated in order to prevent further lis between the parties. 6. The Circle Officer is directed to issue notice to both the parties to appear on any day which he chooses for making physical verification for demarcation and do the demarcation in presence of both the parties, however, entire exercise shall be completed not beyond a period of two months. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ application stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) JANUARY 29, 2026 vikas/- uploaded 06.02.2026