2026:JHHC:19431 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(C) No.4414 of 2026 ----- 1.Manik Chandra Louha, son of late Kirti Chandra Louha 2.Narayan Chandra Mandal, son of late Govind Mandal 3.Debendra Kumar Sharma, son of late Kharati Lal Sharma 4.Sudhir Kumar Rakshit, son of late Unapada Rakshit 5.Uttam Kumar Kar, son of late Anil Chandra Kar 6.Moni Ray, wife of Sanat Kumar Rai 7.Ashok Kumar Dutta, son of late Biswanath Dutta All are resident of Kundahit, PO Kundahi, PS Kundahi, District Jamtara … Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Secretary, Land Revenue, Govt.of Jharkhand, Project Building, PO and PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi 3.The Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara 4.The Additional Collector, Jamtara 5.The Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara 6.The Circle Officer, Kundahit Block (Jamtara), PO and PS Kundahit, District Jamtara 7.Kundan Kumar @ Kundan Kumar Goswami, son of late Pradeep Kumar Giri @ Pradeep Goswani 8.Ravi Badyakar, son of Naw Badyakar Both are resident of village Baghasola, PO and PS Kundahit, District Jamtara … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, AC to Sr. AAG …...... 03 /03.07.2026: Heard the learned counsel representing the petitioners and the learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the Circle Officer is not acting on the representation of the petitioners wherein the petitioners have made a prayer to demarcate the land of the petitioners and others which is being used for worship purpose, as the respondent nos. 7 and 8 are trying to encroach the same. 3. The land of which the petitioners are seeking demarcation belongs to these petitioners which according to the petitioners the respondent nos. 7 and 8 are trying to occupy. Further, it is the case of the petitioners that there are some lands 2026:JHHC:19431 2 which they have donated to the Temple, have also being encroached by the respondent nos. 7 and 8. 4. This is absolutely private dispute between the private individuals over the possession of the land. In this type of private dispute the State should not become a party by any means. By giving a representation to the Circle Officer and praying before him to demarcate the land, is only for the purpose of creating jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, each and every representation need not to be considered and taken note of by the State Authorities more so when there is no statutory obligation. 5. In this case the petitioners can themselves, by an Amin get their land measured and if any dispute arises, they may approach the Civil Court for declaration of their right, title and interest over the land in question or claiming possession/ recovery of possession, or may take recourse of BNSS. 6. Considering what has been held above, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition, the same is dismissed. 7. Liberty is reserved with the petitioners to approach the appropriate Forum having competent jurisdiction. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 03.07.2026 Tanuj/CP-2 Uploaded on 07.07.2026