2026:JHHC:21363 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.1358 of 2024 Subhadra Devi, W/o Sitaram Barnwal, Resident of House No. 85, Rajpura, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. Jasidih, District Deoghar- 814152. …………… Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms officiating from his office at Project Bhawan, P.O-Jaganathur, P.S- Jaganathur, Dist- Ranchi. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, officiating from his office an O/o Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, Deoghar District Collectorate, PO and PS Deoghar and Dist- Deoghar. 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar. officiating from his office at O/o SDO, Deoghar, Deoghar District Collectorate, PO and PS Deoghar and Dist- Deoghar. 4. Circle Officer, Devipur officiating from his office at O/o GO, Deoghar, Deoghar _ District Collectorate, PO and PS Deoghar and Dist- Deoghar 5. Anand Barnwal aged about not known to the Petitioner, S/o not known to the Petitioner R/o Village Rajpura, P.O. & P.S. Jasidih, District Deoghar-814152. 6. Purushottam Barnwal S/o Late Sita Ram Barnwal aged about not known to the Petitioner, R/o Village Rajpura, P.O. & P.S. Jasidih, District Deoghar-814152. 7. Lalan Kumar Barnwal S/o Late Sita Ram Barnwal aged about not known to the Petitioner, R/o Village Rajpura, P.O. & P.S. Jasidih, District Deoghar-814152. ………… Respondents ----- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, AC to GA- III …...... 08/20.07.2026: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following relief :- For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) specially in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the entire proceedings of RM Case No. 91 of 2023-24 initiated vide application dated 207 of October 2023 (Annexure3) along with the order contained in पũांक-08 dated 6 of January 2024 (Annexure-5) and the order contained in पũांक-34 dated 1507 of February 2024 (Annexure-7) in connection with RM Case No. 91 of 2023-24, wherein Respondent No. 3 (i.e. Sub- Divisional Officer, Deoghar) has directed demarcation be carried out upon the land forming subject matter and further directed that the possession be handed over to Respondent No. 5; of the instant writ petition as the same is without jurisdiction and suffers from gross illegality. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner claims ownership and peaceful possession over 43.33 acres of land situated at Mouza Kenduwa, Jamabandi No. 27, Deoghar, which originally stood recorded in the names of her ancestors and was subsequently given to her as stridhan. She has been paying land rent to the Government for the property since 1971. Respondent No. 5 initiated RM Case No. 91 of 2023-24 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar seeking demarcation and delivery of possession on the basis of an alleged Rent Eviction Case No. 48 of 1936-37, claiming that 22.62 acres (out of 43.33 acres) had been settled in favour of his ancestors. Relying upon the Circle Officer's report, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar directed demarcation and further ordered delivery of possession to Respondent No. 5 without impleading or hearing the petitioner. Aggrieved by the proceedings and the orders dated 06.01.2024 and 15.02.2024, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel on behalf of the Petitioner submits that RM Case No. 91 of 2023-24 is vitiated as the petitioner, being the true owner and a necessary party, was never impleaded or afforded any opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The impugned proceedings are founded upon alleged documents relating to R.E. Case No. 48 of 1936-37, which are forged, fabricated and unsupported by original records. He further submits that if any such settlement would have taken place, name of -2- Respondent No. 5’s predecessors would have been reflected in the Record of Rights. He further submits that the Circle Officer's report (Annexure-4) is vague and does not specify the plots or area allegedly delivered to the ancestors of Respondent No. 5. The petitioner and her predecessors have remained in uninterrupted possession throughout. The Sub- Divisional Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by directing not only demarcation but also delivery of possession, which can only be adjudicated by a competent civil court. He further submits that Transfer List Cases Nos. 22 and 23 of 1995 concerning the same land are already pending before the Settlement Officer, and the survey operation has not attained finality. He further submits that Respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 colluded to deprive the petitioner of her property, particularly when disputes already existed between the petitioner and Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, against whom proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act are pending. 4. Learned Counsel on the behalf of Respondents submits that Respondent No. 5 claims lawful entitlement over 22.62 acres of the disputed land on the basis of R.E. Case No. 48 of 1936-37, whereby the ancestors of the petitioner were allegedly evicted for non-payment of rent and the land was settled in favour of the ancestors of Respondent No. 5. The revenue records indicate that possession was delivered to the predecessors of Respondent No. 5 pursuant to the competent authority's order dated 14.09.1937, followed by mutation in Mutation Case No. 252 of 1971, thereby recognising their rights. He further submits that the Circle Officer verified the relevant revenue records and submitted a report confirming the earlier settlement and mutation, upon which the Sub-Divisional Officer rightly proceeded. The impugned proceedings were initiated only for demarcation and implementation of existing revenue records. The orders dated 06.01.2024 and 15.02.2024 merely directed demarcation and restoration of possession in accordance with established revenue -3- records and therefore do not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The petitioner's challenge raises disputed questions of title, possession and genuineness of historical documents, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and upon careful consideration of the pleadings and materials brought on record, I am of the opinion that the impugned proceedings of RM Case No. 91 of 2023-24 is legally unsustainable and deserve to be quashed. At the outset, it is an admitted position that the petitioner claims ownership and possession over the scheduled property and asserts that she is the sole legal heir of the recorded raiyat. Despite the petitioner's claim of title and possession, the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer were initiated and concluded without impleading her as a party. Further, the report submitted by the Circle Officer neither clearly identifies the exact plots allegedly settled in favour of the predecessors of Respondent No. 5 nor establishes continuous possession pursuant to the alleged settlement. The orders dated 6.01.2024 and 15.02.2024 in my view have the effect of seriously prejudicing the petitioner's proprietary rights. Any order affecting civil consequences or depriving a person of possession cannot be sustained unless such person has been afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The entire proceeding, therefore, stands vitiated on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. I further find that the Sub-Divisional Officer travelled beyond the scope of his statutory authority as no jurisdiction is vested upon him to adjudicate questions involving title or direct delivery of possession where rival claims exist. The impugned order directing that possession of the disputed property be handed over, amounts to adjudication of civil rights, a jurisdiction vested exclusively in the competent civil court. It further appears from the records that settlement proceedings relating to the property are still pending before the competent Settlement Officer and the survey operation has not -4- attained finality. In such circumstances, the revenue authorities ought to have refrained from directing delivery of possession on the basis of disputed records. 7. The contention of the respondents that the proceedings were merely for demarcation is equally untenable. The impugned order does not stop at directing demarcation but expressly commands delivery of possession to Respondent No. 5. Such a direction clearly exceeds the limited jurisdiction exercisable by the revenue authorities and amounts to usurpation of the jurisdiction of the civil court. 8. In view of what has been held above, the entire proceedings of R.M. Case No. 91 of 2023-24 along with order dated 6.01.2024 and 15.02.2024 stands quashed. The writ petition is, accordingly allowed. Pending I.A. No. 3620 of 2026 and 2372 of 2026 are disposed of. 9. The parties shall be at liberty to establish their respective rights before the competent civil court having jurisdiction. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 20th July,2026 Madhav/- Uploaded on:24/07/2026 -5-