2026:JHHC:21741 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2681 of 2024 ----- Prameshwar Kapri son of Sanichar Kapri, resident of Village Narayanpur, PO Sinhni, PS Jarmundi, District Dumka. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Circle Officer, Dumka, PO & PS Dumka, District Dumka. 3. Officer-in-Charge, Jarmundi, PO & PS Jarmundi, District Dumka. 4. Chairman of Bihar Rajya Dharmik Nyas Parshad at Vidhyapati Marg, PO Chiraiyatand, PS & District Patna. 5. Chairman of Jharkhand Rajya Dharmik Nyas Parshad at Harmu Chowk, PO & PS Argora, District Ranchi. 6. Sub Divisional Officer, Dumka 7. Suresh Rai son of Lt. Foudi Rai 8. Dineshwar Rai son of Lt Brahmi Rai 9. Mohan Rai son of Late Hari Rai 10.Sudama Rai son of Sri Suresh Rai 11.Pontes Rai son of Late Ram Govind Rai 12.Bhikhnath Rai son of Late Ganeshi Rai 13.Damodar Rai son of Late Jhupar Rai 14.Doctor Rai son of Late Shree Prasad Rai 15.Santosh Rai son of Late Shree Prasad Rai 16.Baidhnath Rai son of late Basudeo Rai All are resident of Village Keshri, PO Sinhni, PS Jarmundi, District Dumka. … … Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Vineet Prakash, AC to SC IV Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rahul Sinha, Advocate Mr. Indu Shekhar Gupta, Advocate ---- 10/21.07.2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for a direction upon the respondent Nos.2 to 6 to protect a right of the petitioner as “Panda” in Keshri Surya Mandir situated at village Keshri, PO Sinhni, PS Jarmundi, District Dumka and restrain the trespasser respondent Nos.7 to 16 to interfere in the right of the petitioner in the above premises. Petitioner has further prayed for direction upon respondent Nos.7 to 16 not to interfere the peaceful possession and right of the petitioner without having any legal means. Petitioner has also prayed for directing the respondent No.2 (Circle Officer, Dumka) to take appropriate action as per the letter No.1831 of 2025 dated 28.04.2025 issued by the Jharkhand Rajya Hindu Dharmik Nyas Parishad and also 2026:JHHC:21741 -: 2 :- directed to give security to the petitioner and the temple should be vacated from the encroachers. 3. Case of the petitioner is that ancestor of the petitioner obtained right as Panda through hukumnama dated 03.02.1926 executed by Zamindar. Same right was endorsed by Bihar Rajya Dharmik Religious Trust Board. A proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated wherein the report of the Officer-in-charge, Dumka also endorse the complain of the petitioner as true and recommendation was made for proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Through letter dated 17.08.1999, Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts also endorsed the right of the petitioner as a Panda in Keshri Surya Mandir and the same right is still continuing. On the complain of the petitioner, the Executive Superintendent, Bihar State Board of Religious Trust informed the Officer-in-Charge, Jarmundi, Dumka regarding interference by anti- social elements and directed the Officer-in-Charge to take proper action in this regard and protect the right of the petitioner. The petitioner also informed the Officer-in-Charge, Jarmundi Police Station, Dumka through an application dated 11.02.2000 about some persons interfering with the right of the petitioner and threatened him to kill. Petitioner had also lodged a Sanha No.251 of 1999 on 14.12.1999 before the Jarmundi Police Station about interference by persons with his right and about the threatening to him. Petitioner has also brought on record his application submitted to the Jharkhand Rajya Hindu Nyas Parishad, Ranchi on 22.03.2024 regarding interference with his right, threatening given to the petitioner and forceful attempts to grab the temple. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ancesstors of the petitioner and subsequently the petitioner has been working as Panda of Keshri Surya Mandir since 1926 and interference by the private respondents with the rights of the petitioner is bad and illegal, and as such the right of the petitioner needs to be protected by the State-respondents and any interference by private respondents should be restrained. 5. Learned counsel for the State-respondents submits that the petitioner is claiming that his ancesstors were appointed as Panda in the temple, however, has failed to show that he is Panda in the temple, 2026:JHHC:21741 -: 3 :- whereas in an enquiry conducted by the officers under the Circle Officer, Jarmundi, it has come that at present the private respondents are working as Panda in the temple. The private respondents also claim that they are working as Panda in the temple. 6. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, it appears that there is serious dispute amongst the petitioner and the private respondents. Both claim similar rights. The dispute is factual in nature, which can only be resolved by leading evidence. This type of dispute can only be decided in a civil suit by a competent Civil Court on proper adjudication of the issues after weighing the available evidence, both oral and documentary. Thus, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. (Ananda Sen, J.) Ranchi Dated 21st July, 2026 Kumar/Cp-02 Uploaded on 23.07.2026