2026:JHHC:18613 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6182 of 2019 ------ Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal aged about 58 years son of Late Narendra Prasad Jaiswal @ Narendra Prasad Bhagat, resident of Gudri Bazar, P.O. and P.S. Chatra, District -Chatra. .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S. Hazaribagh, District - Hazaribagh. 3. Additional Collector, Chatra, P.O. and P.S. Chatra, District Chatra. 4. Land Reform Deputy Collector, Chatra, P.O. and P.S. Chatra, District-Chatra. 5. Circle Officer, Chatra, P.O. and P.S. Chatra, District -Chatra. 6. Gopal Sinduria son of Late Badri Narayan Sinduria, resident of Mohalla Chatra, P.O. and P.S.Chatra, District - Chatra. . … Respondent(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s): None For the State: Ms. Oishi Das, AC to AG ------ 12/24.06.2026 None appears on behalf of the petitioner even on repeated calls. 2. I have gone through the writ petition and the prayer made therein. 3. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 16.7.2019 passed by the learned Court of Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribag in Chatra Cancellation of Demand Revision No. 63 of 2015, whereby the learned Court of Commissioner has dismissed the said Revision, filed by the petitioner. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in Khata No. 148 of Mouza Chatra, Plot Nos. 674, 675, 659 and 456 having an area of 3.10 acres were settled in favour of Narendra Prasad Jaiswal, the ancestor of this petitioner by the Ex-landlord. It is his further case that Fard-Amin submitted his report dated 16.1.1933 reflecting that 0.26 acre of land of Plot No. 675 and 2.44 acres land of Plot No. 674 were found to be reclaimed. It is his further case that the land was settled by the Ex-landlord after grant of Zamindari rent receipt. It is also his case that after vesting of Zamindari, the demand was open in respect of 3.10 acres of land in favour of father of this petitioner. The petitioner’s case is that he was paying rent and his name was reflected in Register-II, but in the year 2014, the petitioner came to know that the Circle Officer vide order dated 6.4.2010 in case No. 54/2009-10 has issued demand in respect of the aforesaid plots in favour of one Gopal Sinduria- respondent No. 6, herein. The said order was also confirmed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Misc. Appeal before the learned Court of Addl. Collector, Chatra, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Cancellation of Demand Revision No. 63 of 2015, which was also dismissed. 5. In the counter affidavit, the State has taken a plea that the land was settled by the Ex-landlord in the name of one Badri Narayan Sinduria, who was the father of Respondent No. 6. It was also found that the said person was in possession of the land in question. It is further stated that after being satisfied with the report, inquiry and findings, that the respondent No. 6 is in possession of the land in question an appropriate order has been passed in favour of respondent No. 6. [At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention herein that though in the counter affidavit filed by the State, everywhere, respondent No. 6 has been mentioned but due to inadvertence in some places, the word ‘petitioner’ has been mentioned to indicate respondent No. 6, which is not correct.]. It has also been mentioned that the rent receipt filed by the petitioner is doubtful and suspicious and there are no rent receipts of Ramgarh Ward and Estate in confirmation of settlement of land, which the petitioner is claiming. 6. From the aforesaid fact, I find that there is serious disputed question of title involved in this case. The petitioner is also claiming title so is the respondent No. 6. This dispute cannot be resolved in an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The title of the parties will be established by leading evidences, both oral and documentary. The correctness and authenticity of the documents also need to be proved as per law. 7. Thus, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in this writ petition. The petitioner, if so advised, may approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction claiming his right, title and interest over the property in question by impleading respondent No. 6 as party. On conclusion of the trial, the Revenue Authority will abide by the judgment and decree, which will be passed in the suit and make necessary correction in the revenue records of the land, as per the judgment and decree. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 24th June, 2026 Anu/-Cp-2 Uploaded on:07.07.2026