2026:JHHC:20401 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.2266 of 2025 ------ Anil Kumar Choudhary, S/o Late Satish Chandra Choudhary, R/o Choudhary Colony, Sahibganj, P.S. + P.O. + District Sahibganj, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, P.O. + P.S. + District Sahibganj, Jharkhand. 3. SDO, Sahibganj, P.O. + P.S. + District Sahibganj, Jharkhand. 4. Manoj Choudhary, R/o Choudhary Colony, Sahibganj, P.O. + P.S. + District Sahibganj, Jharkhand. 5. Shankar Choudhary, S/o Late Bhola Choudhary, R/o Choudhary Colony, Sahibganj, P.O. + P.S. + District Sahibganj, Jharkhand. 6. Kinker Choudhary, S/o Late Bhola Choudhary, R/o Choudhary Colony, Sahibganj, P.O. + P.S. + District Sahibganj, Jharkhand. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Tejaswi, Advocate Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, AC to AAG-V Mr. Shwetang Kr. Tiwari, Advocate ------ 05/ 09.07.2026 By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "a. For quashing of order dated 11.09.2024, letter no.III/28-2024 479/Sahibganj, passed by SDO, Sahibganj, whereby Respondent 4 was permitted to build a boundary wall by Resp 3, without any title, ownership or possession of the said property. And/or b. For directing the respondents to honour the arbitral award dated 10.07.1991 in AW 207/1991, wherein the property in dispute was awarded to the father of the petitioner by way of arbitration. And/or 2026:JHHC:20401 2 c. To dispose of the representation addressed to Respondents 2 and 3. And/or d. To direct the respondent 3 to produce order dtd. 11.9.24." 2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 3. After going through the aforesaid impugned order, I find that the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Sahibganj, has held that the land cannot be used by the petitioner and has appointed the Circle Officer, Sahibganj, to ensure construction of the boundary wall over the land in question to restrain the petitioner from using the same. The order is in favour of respondent No.4. 4. During the course of argument, both the parties claim possession and title over the area in question. 5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that this land is recorded jointly in the name of the ancestors of the petitioner and also the private respondents. She also submits that the SDO, Sahibganj, has no power to pass the impugned order. 6. After considering the submission of the parties, I find that there is a genuine dispute between both the parties over the land in question. Admittedly, there is no partition between the parties and the land in question cannot be said to be in exclusive possession of anyone. 7. Considering the claim of the parties, the best course for the petitioner would be to approach the Civil Court either by filing the suit claiming right, title and interest or a suit for partition. If 2026:JHHC:20401 3 such suit is filed, the petitioner may pray for an interim injunction and also pray for his right to ingress and egress over the property in question, which should be considered independently without being prejudiced by the impugned order and the order passed by this Court. 8. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. 9. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, by impleading respondent Nos.4 and 6 as parties to the proceeding. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 09th July, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 14.07.2026