JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The subject matter of the present writ petition concerns a piece of land situated at Thana No. 564, Khata No. 18, Plot No. 66, measuring an area of 2.05 acres, located at Mausa Chaksirimisrbandh. BACKGROUND FACTS: 3. The subject land was purchased by one Shanti Lata Sarkar through registered Sale Deed dated 16.10.1946 from Shivanand Brahmachari @ Bharat Chandra Chakravorty, Gurupita Swami Dhurv Nand Giri. The name of Late Shanti Lata Sarkar is duly recorded in the entries made in the Register-II. 4. Shanti Lata Sarkar died leaving behind her legal representatives namely Santosh Sarkar, Ashutosh Sarkar, Paritosh Sarkar, Bhabatosh Sarkar and Mantosh Sarkar (five sons) and five daughters namely Radha Rani Ghosh, Sudha Rani Mazumdar, Shobha Rani Nandi Mazumdar, Bibha Nandi Mazumdar and Nibha Rani Sinha. 5. In the meantime, Holding Tax Receipt is issued in the name of Anjan Sarkar (legal representative of Late Shanti Lata Sarkar). The Holding Tax Receipt was issued for the Financial Year 2016-17 and 2017-18 and legal representative of Late Shanti Lata Sarkar has deposited the Holding Tax. The Rent Receipts are duly issued in the name of the legal representatives of Late Shanti Lata Sarkar. 6. The legal representatives of Late Shanti Lata Sarkar executed a registered Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioners on 09.02.2017 for the managing, supervising, looking after and control of the matters and to commence, prosecute, carryon or defend or resist all suits and other actions and proceedings or to be added as a party or withdraw the same concerning the properties or any part thereof in any court in civil, criminal, revenue or revisional jurisdiction, including jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and to sign and verify all plaints, written statements in connection with the land bearing plot no. 66 Jamabandi No. 18 having an area of 1.86 Acres and Plot No. 68, Jamabandi No. 15 having an area of 0.14 Acres a total area of 2.00 Acres under Jamabandi No. 18 and 15 situated at Mouza Chaksirimisir Bandh, Mouza No.564, Mohanpur, Deoghar. PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER: 7. The Circle Officer, Mohanpur issued letter dated 08/09. 02. PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER: 7. The Circle Officer, Mohanpur issued letter dated 08/09. 02. 2017, directing the petitioner to stop construction of the land in question with a further direction to appear before the said authority on 14 February 2017, along with documents relating to the land. Upon receipt of the above said letter the petitioner appeared before the concerned authority and filed its written representation along with the relevant documents. The petitioner has stated that the petitioners visited the office of the Circle Officer, Mohanpur on 7 July 2017 and submitted its representation along with the documents and made a prayer to reject the complaint made by private person regarding the allegation of encroachment over the land. Without passing any order on the representations made by the petitioner, the Circle Officer, Mohanpur issued a notice to the 16 Anna Raiyats of Mouza Chaksirimisrbandh, directing them to file objections in connection with the land. Thereafter, the petitioners have claimed to visit the office of the Circle Officer, Mohanpur on 26 August 2017, and filed a representation with request to drop the enquiry. Since no decision was taken by the Circle Officer, Mohanpur, the petitioner was constrained to file a Writ Petition before the High Court of Jharkhand, which was numbered as WPC No. 2431 of 2018. The above stated petition was disposed of by the court by an order dated 26 June 2018, directing the circle officer Mohanpur to dispose of the proceedings initiated by him on the basis of documents available on record and after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the concerned parties within a period of 16 weeks and also kept all the issues opened before the authority. 8. Pursuant to the disposal of above writ applications petitioners filed another representation along with the order passed by the High Court dated 26 June 2018, followed by another representation dated 8 September 2018. Surprisingly, the circle officer, Mohanpur issued notice dated 22 October 2018, directing the petitioner to file the necessary papers on the basis that the petitioner has not filed any documents till that date and further directed to appear before the authority on 25 October 2018. Thereafter, the petitioners appeared before the said authority and filed a detailed written note of arguments on 27 October 2018. 9. Thereafter, the petitioners appeared before the said authority and filed a detailed written note of arguments on 27 October 2018. 9. The Circle officer without considering the contention raised by the petitioner and also without ruling as to his own jurisdiction by the impugned order dated 12 December 2018, rejected the claim of the petitioner and held that the nature of the land has been recorded as Gair Mazurwa Bandh which is non-transferable and hence made the prohibitory order dated 08/09. 02.2017 restraining the petitioner from making any construction over the subject land absolute. In the order dated 12.12.2018 it was also recorded that an order has already been passed to install a plaque indicating that is a subject land is a government land and it is in the nature of a pond by referring to an order dated 13 March 2018 passed in WP (PIL) No. 1972 of 2017. The Public Interest Litigation 10. At this juncture it would be pertinent to mention that the land in question was previously the subject of a Public Interest Litigation, registered as WP (PIL) No. 1972 of 2017, which was filed by one Jayadeo Parihast. In the said PIL, the prayer was made that the land, recorded as a ‘bandh’, was being encroached upon by illegal occupants, and therefore, the State may be directed to take appropriate action to vacate the encroachment and restore the land in accordance with law. The petitioner in the present writ petition has specifically contended that it was not made a party in the aforesaid public interest litigation. This assertion remains undisputed by any party in the current proceedings. The above-mentioned public interest litigation was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 13.03.2018, wherein the respondent State was directed to look into the matter. The Court further directed that if any encroachment or illegal occupation of the premises, as alleged in the writ petition, was found, the same should be vacated strictly in accordance with law. The Stand in The Counter Affidavit. 11. The respondents in their counter affidavit and another affidavit filed subsequently have asserted that the present petition has been filed by the power of attorney holders and a picture is sought to be painted as if they are the actual owners of the land. The Stand in The Counter Affidavit. 11. The respondents in their counter affidavit and another affidavit filed subsequently have asserted that the present petition has been filed by the power of attorney holders and a picture is sought to be painted as if they are the actual owners of the land. In the affidavit, it has been stated that a complaint was made by 32 raiyats lead by One Shamsher Singh, stating there in that the petitioners are trying to encroach upon the public pond, and on the basis of such complaint a proceeding was initiated and the notice dated 08/09. 02. 2017 was issued to the petitioners. The Circle Officer pursuant to the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in WPC No. 2431 of 2018, heard the matter and on the basis of the materials available and record, and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, came to a conclusion that the entry made in the Gantzer’s settlement reflects that plot no. 66 was a bandh and that the petitioners have no right over the same. Reference was also made to a report dated 5 February 2017 prepared by the revenue Karamchari which also recorded that the land in question is a pond over a Government land. GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE 12. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 12 December 2018 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of a Circle Officer to pass an order of this nature. The petitioners have in this regard, submitted that there is no statutory provision, which authorises the Circle Officer to pass an order in the nature of a prohibitory injunction, restraining the lawful owner to use his property. In this context, it was submitted that even an order of a court cannot confer jurisdiction on an Authority. It was also contended that the finding that the land is a pond/ bandh is factually incorrect. It has been submitted that this Court vide an order dated 07.07.2025, in order to ascertain whether there exists a pond over Plot No. 66, directed the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar to file Google satellite imaginary with north on the top along with the actual map drawn by the Anchal Amin and actual photographs of Plot Nos. 66. It has been submitted that this Court vide an order dated 07.07.2025, in order to ascertain whether there exists a pond over Plot No. 66, directed the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar to file Google satellite imaginary with north on the top along with the actual map drawn by the Anchal Amin and actual photographs of Plot Nos. 66. Pursuant to the above order, and affidavit was filed by the respondents on 01.09.2025 in which it was, inter alia, stated currently the plot is a plain land. The maps / photographs annexed with the affidavit also show that no pond exists on subject Plot No. 66. ANALYSIS & REASONING 13. After going through the pleadings on record and upon considering the oral arguments of the parties the issues which need to be addressed by this Court are as follows: i. Whether the Circle Officer, Mohanpur had the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings to injunct the petitioner from carrying out any construction activities and pass the impugned order ? ii. Whether the subject matter of this writ petition i.e. a piece of land situated at Thana No. 564, Khata No. 18, Plot No. 66, measuring an area of 2.05 acres, located at Mauza Chaksirimisrbandh is a Public Pond or not ? 14. With respect to the first issue relating to jurisdiction of the Circle Officer, Mohanpur it was contended by the respondents that the said proceedings were initiated on a public complaint that a public pond was being encroached and thereafter this Court vide an order dated 13 March 2018 passed in WP (PIL) No. 1972 of 2017 had also directed to take action in the matter of encroachment. Further, in WPC No. 2431 of 2018 this Court had also directed to conclude the proceedings initiated. It is settled law that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and that there is no statute which authorises a Circle Officer to pass an order of or in the nature of an injunction restraining the petitioner from making any construction over the land in question. In Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors. v. Director Health Services, Haryana & Ors., reported in (2013) 10 SCC 136 the Supreme Court held as under: “9. In Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors. v. Director Health Services, Haryana & Ors., reported in (2013) 10 SCC 136 the Supreme Court held as under: “9. Indisputably, it is a settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior court, and if the court passes a decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to nullity as the matter goes to the root of the cause…… The finding of a court or tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/inexecutable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction. Similarly, if a court/tribunal inherently lacks jurisdiction, acquiescence of party equally should not be permitted to perpetrate and perpetuate defeating of the legislative animation. The court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the statute. In such eventuality the doctrine of waiver also does not apply.” 15. It is also equally true that an order of a Court cannot confer jurisdiction on any authority if the said authority does not possess the competence to adjudicate disputes of such nature. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Ranjit Kumar Murmu v. Lachmi Narayan Bhomroj and others , reported in [ (2013) 14 SCC 572 ] wherein it was held that the court or any individual cannot confer jurisdiction upon any authority who otherwise is not so empowered under the statute. 16. From bare perusal of the order dated 26 June 2018 passed in WPC No. 2431 of 2018 it appears that the Court had kept all contentions open and thus it cannot be said that the issue of jurisdiction was not kept open. Further, it was contended that the Division Bench vide order dated 13.03.2018 passed in WP (PIL) No. 1972 of 2017 never conferred jurisdiction on the Circle Officer to pass an order restraining the petitioner from carrying out any construction activities and that too without any order from a competent court holding or declaring that the petitioner does not have title. Further, it was contended that the Division Bench vide order dated 13.03.2018 passed in WP (PIL) No. 1972 of 2017 never conferred jurisdiction on the Circle Officer to pass an order restraining the petitioner from carrying out any construction activities and that too without any order from a competent court holding or declaring that the petitioner does not have title. The Division Bench had directed to take action to remove encroachment in accordance with law, no such proceeding under the Land Encroachment Act was initiated and the impugned proceedings initiated prior to the passing of the order dated 13.03.2018 passed in WP (PIL) No. 1972 of 2017 was sought to be justified on the touchstone of such order which cannot be countenanced. 17. The Respondents have not been able to point out any provision of law in terms of which a Circle Officer can exercise jurisdiction in respect of enjoyment of a land by its purported owner on the ground that the said land is a government pond. If the Circle Officer is of the view based on cogent and unimpeachable materials that the petitioner or their principal – landowners have encroached on the land, then a proceeding in terms of the Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act can be initiated subject to all just exceptions including the plea of lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the adjudication involves serious and complicated question of facts regarding title of the Government qua the petitioner or their principal – landowners. In such a case the parties will have to be relegated to a civil court for recovery of possession upon declaration of right, title and interest. 18. The reasoning recorded in the preceding paragraph also answers the second issue which was with respect to the question whether the subject land is a public pond or not. This issue cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. There are claims and counter claims. The admitted position as of date is that the land is a plain land. However, what would be the effect of the subject land-Plot No. 66 purportedly been reflected as a pond in the Survey Settlement is a matter to be decided in a duly constituted proceedings before an appropriate forum. There are claims and counter claims. The admitted position as of date is that the land is a plain land. However, what would be the effect of the subject land-Plot No. 66 purportedly been reflected as a pond in the Survey Settlement is a matter to be decided in a duly constituted proceedings before an appropriate forum. As held by the Supreme Court in Jagmittar Sain Bhagat (supra) the finding of a court or tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/inexecutable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction; the finding of the Circle Officer in the impugned order cannot be attached with any legal sanctity and must be held to be void and unenforceable in law. CONCLUSION 19. In view of the above, it can safely be held that the proceedings initiated by the Circle Officer, Mohanpur vide letter dated 08/09. 02. 2017 directing the petitioner to stop construction of the land in question which culminated in passing of the impugned order dated 12 December 2018 are without jurisdiction and hence liable to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly set aside. 20. However, the State Government is at liberty to initiate any proceedings which is permissible in law and the petitioner will be entitled to take all legally permissible defences to oppose the initiation / continuance or any order passed therein and till the time an order is passed against the petitioner in accordance with law by a competent authority, the possession and the right of the petitioner shall not be interfered with. 21. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending IAs, if any, are closed.