2026:JHHC:25426 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.6560 of 2018 ------ Gyas Mandal, son of late Rajak Mandal, resident of Village Bahapur, P.O. Maheshpur, P.S. Maheshpur, District Pakur, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through Director, Department of Fisheries, P.O. + P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Government of Jharkhand. 2. The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, P.O. + P.S. + District Dumka. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, P.O. + P.S. + District Pakur. 4. District Fishery Officer, P.O. + P.S. + District Pakur. 5. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, P.O. + P.S. + District Pakur. 6. Circle Officer, Maheshpur Block, P.O. + P.S. + District Pakur. 7. District Bhoodan Yagya Committee, P.O. + P.S. + District Sahibganj. 8. Balia Begum, W/o Hasmat Sheikh resident of Village Bahapur, P.O. & P.S. Maheshpur, District Pakur. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate Ms. Maksuda Khatun, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankit Kumar, AC to GP-VI Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate Mr. Asadul Haque, Advocate ------ 24/ 20.08.2026 By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(i) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the order dated 20.06.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka (Respondent No.2) in R.M.R. No.46/2007-2008 whereby the Learned Court 2026:JHHC:25426 2 allowed the Revision Application of Balia Begum (Respondent No.8) setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur dated 08.05.2007 in R.M.A. No.5 of 2005-06 and upholding the order passed by the D.C.L.R. Pakur dated 26.09.2003 in Rec. Misc. Case No.14 of 2002-03. (ii) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to uphold the order passed by The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur dated 08.05.2007 in R.M.A. No.5 of 2005-06 reversing the order dated 26.09.2003 passed by D.C.L.R., Pakur in Rev. Misc. Case No.14 of 2002-03." 2. Heard learned senior counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 3. Facts giving rise to the present controversy are as follows:- 3.1. A chunk of land ad measuring 1.30 Acre of Mouza Bahapur No.314, Anchal Maheshpur, bearing Jamabandi No.94, Plot No.19, District Pakur, was recorded in the Books of Record as 'Anabadi Pushkarni' (Unabadi Khas Tank), in the last survey settlement. 3.2. The tank bearing Plot No.19 of Mouza Bahapur was settled as Sairat from 1992-93 by the District Fishery Officer, Sahibganj in favour of Maheshpur Matsyajivi Sahyog Samiti Limited, Maheshpur, which is a registered Society, and the said Society used to settle the said tank to its members belonging to village Bahapur, Maheshpur Anchal, District Sahibganj; likewise plot No.19 of Mouza Bahapur came to be settled in favour of Gyas Mandal (petitioner herein) and Ravi Let on 12.07.2007, for the year 2007-08. 2026:JHHC:25426 3 3.3. On the basis of a petition filed by respondent No.8 - Balia Begum, a case bearing No.14/2002-03 was registered before the Court of D.C.L.R. Pakur, for confirmation of Bhoodan Patta No.77761 and for fixation of rent in respect of Bhoodan Patta land ad measuring 1.30 Acre of Mouza Bahapur No.314, Plot No.19, P.S. Maheshpur, in the District of Pakur. 3.4. The D.C.L.R. on a random date i.e. 26.09.2003, passed a final order confirming the Bhoodan Patta No.77761. 3.5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner along with others filed R.M.A. No.05/05-06 before the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, pleading therein that the order passed by the D.C.L.R. was without notice and in absence of 16 Anna Raiyats. The said R.M.A. Appeal stood allowed vide order dated 08.05.2007 and the order dated 26.09.2003, passed by the D.C.L.R., Pakur, was set aside. 3.6. Against the said decision in the R.M.A. Appeal, respondent No.8 filed a Revision Application being Rev. Misc. (Bhoodan) Revision No.46/2007-08, before the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, which stood allowed vide order dated 20.06.2018 and the order dated 08.05.2007 passed in R.M.A. No.05/05-06, was set aside, with an observation that the Court below has failed to appreciate that as per the enquiry report of the Circle Officer, Maheshpur, the character of the tank has already changed and it has become an agricultural land and there is no Sairat settlement of the so called tank. 3.7. The petitioner thus moved before this Court by way of instant writ petition. 2026:JHHC:25426 4 4. After this writ petition was filed before this Court, several pleadings were exchanged and both the parties contested tooth and nail for their claim. To that count, several orders and directions were issued by this Court from time to time, to grapple out the dispute. This Court in one of its orders i.e. order dated 08.04.2026, passed in this case, had directed the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, to himself make spot verification and thereafter file a report mentioning therein as to whether the area ad measuring 1.30 Acre of Mouza Bahapur No.314, Anchal Maheshpur, bearing Jamabandi No.94, Plot No.19, which is recorded in the Books of Record as 'Anabadi Pushkarni', is a tank or not, and if the present status of the tank has been changed, who has changed the same? The Deputy Commissioner was also directed to mention as to when the nature of the tank has been changed and till when the said pond was auctioned for the purpose of fisheries. 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the report has been submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur. 6. On perusal of the said report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, it is found that the land is still a tank, thus the finding of the Commissioner that the character of the tank has changed and it has become an agricultural land, is absolutely beyond records and without any basis whatsoever. Further, the tank is being regularly settled on 'Sairats'. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 20.06.2018 in R.M.R. No.-46/2007-08, passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Paragana Division, Dumka (Annexure-3 to 2026:JHHC:25426 5 the writ petition), which is absolutely against the facts of this case, is hereby set aside. 8. If any party claims title over the land in question, it will be open to them to approach the Civil Court by filing an appropriate suit. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 20th August, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 25.08.2026