( 2026:JHHC:21758 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(C) No. 4093 of 2021 ----- 1. Tarani Singh Bhumij, aged about 66 years. 2. Bhabani Singh Bhumij, aged about 54 years Both sons of Ranglal Singh Bhumij, residents of Village-Kend-dih, P.O Kapali, P.S- Chandil, District Seraikella-Kharsawan … Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Project Bhawan, P.O-Dhurwa, P.S Jagannathpur, District Ranchi 2. Sub-Divisional Officer, Chandil, P.O & P.S-Chandil, District Seraikella-Kharsawan 3. Officer-in-charge, Kapali Police Outpost, P.O Kapali, P.S. Chandil, District Seraikella, Kharsawan 4. Saraswati Devi@ Saraswati Singh Bhumij, widow of Late Jagran Singh Bhumij, resident of Old Sonari, P.O Sonari, P.S Sonari, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum … Respondent(s). CORAM :SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate For the Respondents : : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III : Mr. Md. Imran Beig, Advocate : Mr. Rishika Deogharia, Advocate …...... 07/22.07.2026: 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he wants to delete the name of the petitioner no. 1 as he is dead, and he does not want to substitute any person in his place. 2. Prayer as sought for, is allowed. 3. Accordingly, the necessary corrections be carried out during course of the day. 4. Now, this writ petition is only confined to petitioner no.2 5. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 6. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.08.2021 contained in Memo No. 1114 dated 28.08.2021 whereby the respondent no. 2 permitted the respondent no.4, with the police assistance, to work on the lands-in-question and prohibited the petitioners from going over the same. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without any jurisdiction. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Chandil without initiating any proceedings under the CrPC/BNSS has restrained the petitioner from entering upon the land in question which is situated in Mouza-Kapali, Khata No.291, Plot No. 1300 and 1301, having ( 2026:JHHC:21758 ) an area of 28 decimals. He submits that without initiating a proceeding under 144 CrPC/166 BNSS no restrain order can be passed. The counsel further submits that respondent no. 2 in their counter-affidavit, in para no. 14 has admitted that no proceeding was initiated. 8. The counsel appearing on behalf of the State and respondent no. 4 submit that even if there is no proceeding initiated but to maintain law and order, this impugned order was passed restraining the petitioner from entering upon the land. The counsel further submits that in the Title Suit and its Appeal respondent no. 4 herein has succeeded, thus this order was passed. 9. It is an admitted case that the Title Suit no. 34 of 2006, was decided in favour of the respondent no. 4 and so was the appeal being Title Appeal No. 23 of 2012. 10. It is alleged that as the petitioners, who were the plaintiffs in the aforesaid Title Suit and were trying to enter upon the land in question, the aforesaid order was passed. Admittedly, no proceeding was initiated under section 144 CrPC or under section 166 BNSS. The Sub-Divisional Officer only to maintain peace had passed the order impugned, restraining the petitioner from entering over land in question. Even for the sake of argument, if it is taken to be a proceeding under section 144 CrPC/166 BNSS then also the order has lost its force with the passage of time. 11. Further, it is an admitted fact, which is apparent from the counter- affidavit, that no proceeding was initiated. In absence of any proceeding, without giving an opportunity of hearing, the impugned order could not have been passed restraining the petitioner. 12. On these grounds, the impugned order dated 27.08.2021 contained in Memo No. 1114 dated 28.08.2021 is set aside. 13. Accordingly, the writ application stands allowed. 14. The parties are directed to abide by the order passed in Title Suit No. 34 of 2006 and Title Appeal No. 23 of 2012. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 22.07.2026 Abha/-