2026:JHHC:18958-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.391 of 2025 ----- 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. 3. The Additional Collector, Ranchi. 4. The Circle Officer, Chanho, Ranchi. .......... Appellants. -Versus- 1. Keshav Narayan Singh, son of Late Man Bodh Singh, resident of H. No.122, Near Panchayat Bhawan, P.O. Chutupalu, P.S. Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh. 2. Bimli Devi, wife of Late Bhirvi Sharan Singh, resident of H. No.122, Near Panchayat Bhawan, P.O. Chutupalu, P.S. Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh. 3. Dilranjan Singh, son of Late Bhirvi Sharan Singh, resident of H. No.122, Near Panchayat Bhawan, P.O. Chutupalu, P.S. Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh. 4. Alok Kumar Singh, son of Late Bhirvi Sharan Singh, resident of H. No.122, Near Panchayat Bhawan, P.O. Chutupalu, P.S. Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh. 5. Anup Kumar Singh, son of Late Bhirvi Sharan Singh, resident of H. No.122, Near Panchayat Bhawan, P.O. Chutupalu, P.S. Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh. 6. Poonam Devi, daughter of Late Bhirvi Sharan Singh, resident of Gomia Colony, P.O. & P.S. Gomia, District-Bokaro. 7. Bhuneshwari Devi, daughter of Keshav Narayan Singh, resident of village-Oberai, P.O. & P.S. Hatia, District-Ranchi. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellants : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, S.C.-IV For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocate ----- Order No.04 Date: 30.06.2026 1. Heard Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, S.C.-IV for the appellants and Mr. Amit Sinha for the respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the learned Single Judge’s order dated 17th January, 2025 disposing of W.P.(C) No.6526 of 2023. 3. Mr. Bhaduri firstly submitted that this decision has its basis in the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Chotanagpur Diocesan Trust Association and Another vs. The State of 2026:JHHC:18958-DB 2 Jharkhand and Others [W.P.(C) No.5088 of 2018]. He submitted that as against this decision, the State has preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).41797 of 2025 in which a notice is already issued. Accordingly, he submits that this is a good ground for admitting the present appeal. 4. Mr. Bhaduri submitted that the petitioner had made a representation to the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate which was dismissed by order dated 13th January, 2025. This aspect has not been sufficiently considered in the impugned order, which consequently warrants interference in this appeal. 5. Mr. Amit Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order based on the reasoning reflected therein. He pointed out that the impugned order notes that the issue raised therein was covered by the decision in Brinda Devi Agarwal vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others [W.P.(C) No.847 of 2023] decided on 13th December, 2024. He pointed out that to the best of his knowledge, no appeal was filed by the State against this judgment dated 13th December, 2024. 6. Mr. Sinha pointed out that the State had already filed a title suit in this matter, thereby, accepting the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. He pointed out that even otherwise, it was settled position in law that the revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to decide complicated issues of title. 7. For the above reasons, Mr. Sinha submitted that this appeal may be dismissed. 2026:JHHC:18958-DB 3 8. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 9. The impugned order, in paragraph no.3, records that the issues raised in W.P.(C) No.6526 of 2023 in which the impugned order has been made stand covered by judgment and order dated 13th December, 2024 in the case of Brinda Devi Agarwal (Supra). 10. To our specific query as to whether the State has appealed the judgment and order dated 13th December, 2024, Mr. Bhaduri had yesterday (29th June, 2026) sought for a short adjournment to obtain instructions. Today, he reports that as yet no appeal has been filed but there is a proposal to file the appeal. He submitted that he has written instructions in this regard which he placed on record vide memo dated 27th June, 2026 addressed to him. 11. There is no dispute that the issues raised in W.P.(C) No.6526 of 2023 in which the impugned order has been made stand covered by the judgment and order dated 13th December, 2024 in the case of Brinda Devi Agarwal (Supra). If, for more than almost two and half years, the State has not appealed the said decision, there was nothing wrong in the learned Single Judge’s order, relying upon the said decision and granting relief to the petitioners vide the impugned order dated 17th January, 2025. 12. Merely because the State is contemplating filing an appeal against the binding precedent or that there is some proposal to appeal, binding precedent cannot be a ground to deface the efficacy of such a binding precedent. Accordingly, we detect no error in the impugned order warranting interference in this appeal. 2026:JHHC:18958-DB 4 13. Secondly, we note that the learned Single Judge, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Thummala Krishan Rao and Another, (1982) 2 SCC 134, has held that if there is a bona fide dispute regarding title of the Government to any property, the Government cannot take a unilateral decision in its own favour that the property belongs to it, and on the basis of such a decision take recourse to the summary remedy provided under the revenue laws. 14. In this case, the impugned order holds that the Government’s unilateral action in proceeding on the premise that it is the owner cannot be countenanced. At the highest, if the Government has any claim, then it is for the Government to establish such claim by taking out appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court. 15. It is undisputed that the Government has already filed Original Suit (Title Suit) No. 320 of 2025. The compliance affidavit filed before the Court hearing a contempt application for non- compliance with the directions in the impugned order is consistent with this position. Now that a title suit has already been filed and is pending, there is no good reason to interfere with the impugned order on the grounds now urged in this appeal. 16. Besides, even if we are to assume that the decision in Chotanagpur Diocesan Trust Association and Another (Supra) was one of the grounds for making the impugned order, though the impugned order does not say so, even then, the fact 2026:JHHC:18958-DB 5 that a notice has been issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition against the same does not mean that the said decision could not have been followed by the learned Single Judge. However, as noted earlier, the impugned order does not refer to or even rely upon the decision in the case of Chotanagpur Diocesan Trust Association and Another (Supra). 17. For the above reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and consequently dismiss the same without any order for costs. 18. I.As., if any, pending in the appeal, do not survive and are disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 30th June, 2026 Sanjay/Rohit Uploaded on 02.07.2026