2026:JHHC:25613 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6561 of 2026 ------ Shailesh Kumar Pandey, S/o Late Manohar Pandey Resident of vill- 37, Bishunpur near hand pump, PO-Bishunpur, PS-Latehar, Dist- Latehar. … … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Land Reforms Deputy Copllector Latehar, PO & PS-Latehar, Dist-Latehar, Jharkhand. 3. Circle Officer, Latehar, PO & PS-Latehar, Dist-Latehar, Jharkhand. 4. Satyawati Devi wife of Late Awadhbihar Pandey Resident of Village-Bishunpur, PO + PS-Latehar, Dist-Latehar. 5. Pandey Ravi Shankar Son of Jagdish Pandey Resident of Village-Bishunpur, PO + PS-Latehar, Dist-Latehar. … … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nandan Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, AC to GP-II ------ 03/ 25th August, 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “1. For issuance of an appropriate writ9s) / order(s) / direction(s) commanding upon the respondent authorities. a. For quashing of the order dated 02.04.2026 order passed by the respondent No.3 (Annexure-3) wherein a Mutation case no.1888/2025 was filed by the respondent No.5 which was allowed by the respondent No.3 without taking into consideration that an objection letter was given by the petitioner and others who are the co-sharer of the property of land which was sold by the respondent no.4 to respondent No.5. b. for direction upon respondent NO.2 to take into consideration of the property of land in question which was not partitioned by the competent court of law and also no any consent letter was filed by the respondent no.4 before the Office of the Registrar when the land was getting registered in favour of respondent No.5 and also surprising is that respondent No.3 has mutated the land in question in favour of the respondent No.5 when the objection was made by the petitioner and other-co-shares of land.” 3. It is the case of the petitioner that land in question is an ancestral joint property of the petitioner and other co-sharers and which was sold to respondent No.5 by the respondent No.4 2026:JHHC:25613 Page | 2 without partitioned it by the competent Court and without taking into consideration the objection of the petitioner and others co- sharer of the land in question, vide order dated 02.04.2026 order of Mutation in Mutation case no.1888 of 2025 was passed in favour of respondent No.5 by the respondent No.3. 4. Considering the aforesaid facts and the relief sought by the petitioner, I find that the petitioner has essentially sought adjudication of his right, title and interest over the joint property in question. This is a private dispute of land between private individuals. It is well settled that such matters which involves determination of right, title and interest over the joint property/land in question cannot be adjudicated by the Revenue Authority. 5. Considering the disputes which involved here in this case, the same cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 6. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance, in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. 8. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 25th August, 2026 S.K.D/CP-2 Uploaded on 28 /08/2026