( 2026:JHHC:19955 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (C) No. 4773 of 2026 ----- 1. Pahalwan Singh, aged about 65 years, son of Late Nand Kishore Singh. 2. Ishwari Ram, aged about 65 years, son of Late Mitru Ram 3. Shriram, aged about 62 years, son of Late Mitru Ram 4. Kishore Kumar, aged about 48 years, son of Late Budhan Ram 5. Prithwi Raj Chandra, aged about 27 years, son of Late Budhan Ram 6. Rakesh Kumar, aged about 25 years, son of Late Birendra Kumar 7. Anshu Kumar aged about 27 years, son of Late Manoj Kumar All resident of Village Khindra Khurd, P.O. Naudiha Khajuri, P.S. - Chhattarpur, District - Palamau.Jugsalai, Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum. … Petitioners(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District - Ranchi. 2. The Secretary, Department of Drinking Water & Sanitation, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda, District - Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, P.O. & P.S. Medininagar, District - Palamau. 4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Chhattarpur, P.O & P.S - Chhattarpur, District - Palamau. 5. The Circle Officer, Chhattarpur, P.O & P.S - Chhattarpur, District Palamau. 6. M/s. L.C.C. Project Ltd. through its Managing Director, having its office at 2nd floor, 0, Baralota, Panki Road, Near GLA College, P.O- Baralota, P.S- Daltonganj, Palamu, Jharkhand-822102. … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioners(s) : Mr. Abhinay Kumar, Advocate For the respondent(s) : Mr. Devesh Krishna, S.C. Mines-III …...... 02/07.07.2026: 1. Heard the parties. 2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioners are challenging an order contained in Letter dated 09.02.2026 vide Memo No. 86 (Annexure 7 ( 2026:JHHC:19955 ) 2 of this writ petition) passed by the Circle Officer, Chhatarpur, Palamau. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land in question was settled in favour of the petitioners by Bihar Bhudan Yagya Committee in the year 1981 and the petitioners are possessing the same. It is the grievance that L.C.C. Project Ltd. is laying pipes through the land of the petitioners under the Palamau Pipeline Project Phase II. It is his grievance that without acquiring and without paying any compensation, the pipes are being laid. Thus, the petitioners have been dispossessed from some part of the land in question. Learned counsel further submits that petitioners raised his grievance and has approached the Circle Officer, Chhatarpur, Palamau who rejected the claim of the petitioners and directed the said L.C.C. Project Ltd. to start the work at the earliest. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer. 5. After going through the impugned order (Annexure-7 of writ petition), I find that though the petitioners had made some complaints but the impugned order clearly suggests that several opportunities were given to them to appear along with the necessary documents but they did not appear and produce documents in their support. 6. Considering the nature of dispute raised by the parties and the relief sought for, I am of the opinion that the matter involves declaration of right, title and interest over the land in question, which cannot be looked into in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. The petitioners are thus directed to approach the Civil Court having competent jurisdiction by filing a suit. The petitioners, if so advised, may file an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC which will also be considered on its own merits at the earliest. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 07.07.2026 Rashmi/-