2026:JHHC:20698 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5519 of 2018 ------- Priti Devi, aged about 37 years, wife of Sri Rajiv Ranjan Bhagat, resident of Village Mahuara, P.O. Mahugama, P.S. Mahugama, District Godda (Jharkhand) .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda, P.O., P.S. & District Godda, Jharkhand. 3. Superintendent of Police, Godda, P.O., P.S. & District Godda, Jharkhand. 4. Sub Divisional Officer, Mahagama, P.O. & P.S. Mahagama, District Godda, Jharkhand. 5. Officer-in-Charge, Mahagama, P.O. Mahagama, P.S. Mahagama, District Godda, Jharkhand. 6. Circle Officer, Mahagama, P.O. Mahagama, P.S. Mahagama, District Godda, Jharkhand. … Respondents. ------- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Faiyaj Alam, Advocate For the Respondents : Mrs. Shalini Shahdeo, Advocate ------ 11/ 13.07.2026: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent-State. 2. By filing this writ application, the petitioner prays for a mandamus to direct the respondent authorities to take appropriate decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner in the light of order dated 31.07.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.3803 of 2012. Further prayer has been made to provide administrative help to the petitioner so that she could make construction and/or alteration on the land in question. The petitioner further prays that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 should not harass the petitioner. 3. After hearing the parties, I find that the petitioner is claiming that the land of Mouza Mahuara, Jamabandi No.52, Plot No.173, area measuring 6 bighas has been purchased by the petitioner, which is the subject matter of this writ petition. 4. In paragraph 13 of this writ petition, the petitioner has stated that the aforesaid land was transferred by way of registered deed No.28 dated 11.02.2010 in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that the respondents are not allowing the petitioner to make any construction and preventing him from putting boundary wall on the land in question on the ground that the sale deed has not conferred any title as the same is a sham document and the person, who has power of attorney, did not have any right to transfer. 5. Counsel for the respondent-State submits that the sale deed has been executed by a power of attorney holder, who did not have the power to do so. It is her submission that on the basis of sham document, the sale deed has been executed, which do not confer any title in favour of the petitioner. She lastly submits that a Title Suit No.60 of 2021 was filed by the State before an appropriate Civil Court, Godda but she fairly admits that the said suit has been dismissed for default and a Civil Miscellaneous Case has been filed for restoration of the same. 6. Considering the admitted fact that the Title Suit now stands dismissed, the respondent cannot themselves take any action nor can they restrain the petitioner from making construction over the land in question. The sale deed unless it is set aside, has to be considered to be legally valid. 7. Admittedly, the title suit filed by the State also got dismissed, though a restoration application is pending but that will not extend any benefit in favour of the State. 8. Thus, the respondent-State should not interfere with the possession of the petitioner nor can interfere with the construction, which the petitioner has made till an appropriate order is passed by the Civil Court, in the event, the title suit is restored and any order is passed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. after hearing the parties. 9. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 13th July, 2026 Madhav/- Uploaded on: 17/07/2026 -2-