2026:JHHC:2589 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.420 of 2026 Kinu Munda, aged about 95 years, Son of Late Durga Munda @ Duga Munda, Resident of Village – Jiarapa, P.O. - Khunti, P.S. - Khunti, Dist. - Khunti, Jharkhand. …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Khunti, P.O. & P.S.- Khunti, Dist.-Khunti. 3. The Land Reforms Deputy Commissioner, Khunti, P.O. & P.S.-Khunti, Dist.-Khunti. 4. The Circle Officer, Khunti, P.O. & P.S.-Khunti, Dist.- Khunti. 5. Subodh Sinha @ Rishikesh Sinha, Son of Krishnnath Sinha, Resident of Harmu Housing Colony, P.O. & P.S.-Argora, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand. …... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate Dr. Saigal Topno, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rai, AC to SC (L&C)-I -------- 03/Dated: 02 nd February, 2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief :- “(a) to set aside the order vide dated 27.03.2025 passed by the Ld. Court of the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti in Mutation Case No. 05/R/15/2014 whereby and whereunder the said Deputy Commissoner uphold or confirm the order dated 20.05.2013 passed by the L.R.D.C, Khunti in Mutation Appeal Case No. 19/2012-13. The said L.R.D.C., Khunti has been pleased to confirm the order dated 10.02.2010 passed by the C.O., Khunti in Mutation Case No. 42/R/27/2009-10. The said Circler Officer, Khunti has been pleased to allow the Mutation for an area 50.82 - 1 - W.P.(C) No.420 of 2026 2026:JHHC:2589 acres bearing R.S. Khata No. 1 & 2 of village-Jiarapa, P.S.-Khunti, Dist.-Ranchi (now Khunti) in Mutation Case No. 42/1/R/27/2009-10..” 3. The description of land is as follows :- “Majhius Land of R.S. Khata No.1 and Basket Khata Land of R.S Khata No.2, Village – Jiarapa, P.S. - Khunti, Dist. - Khunti, measuring 50.82 acres.” 4. From the argument and pleading of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has claimed that the said piece of land has been illegally encroached by the respondent No.5. It has also been claimed that the petitioner is the title holder of the said piece of land and he has applied for creation of mutation which has been rejected by the original authority as well as the appellate authority stating that there is no material to establish the title of the petitioner over the said piece of land. 5. Considering the nature of dispute, it is evident that it is either private dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.5 or it is title claim which can only and only be resolved by the process of civil court and not otherwise. 6. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition and accordingly, the same is, hereby, dismissed. 7. In view of above order, there is no requirement of issuance of notice upon the private respondent. 8. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 02nd February, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/- Uploaded on 03.02.2026 - 2 - W.P.(C) No.420 of 2026