2026:JHHC:26257 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1367 of 2022 Chandrika Mahto, son of Balchandi Mahto, resident of village- Sankh, P.O Sankh, P.S. Ganwa, District- Giridih. …Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Revenue Secretary, at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2. The Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Collector, Eastern Forest Division, Giridih at Mohanpur, P.O Pachamba, P.S. Mohanpur, District- Giridih. 3. The Forest Area Officer, Ganwan Forest Area, Giridih at Forest Colony, P.O Budhiyadih, P.S. and District- Giridih. ... Respondent(s) CORAM: SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : M/s Ram Lakhan Yadav and Savita Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Shubham Gautam, AC to GA-II …...... 2/31.08.2026: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: - For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s), particularly in the nature of certiorari for quashing/setting aside the notice dated 20.9.2021 (Annexure-2) as contained in letter No. 2267 passed in BPLE Case No. 55/2021 and Complain Case No. 732/2021 and notice dated 16.9.2021 (Annexure-5), whereby respondent No. 2 has erroneously and contrary to the law declared an area of 0.12 acres of land as public land under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 and declare the same is contrary to law in view of the Bhoodan Parcha granted to the petitioner under the Bihar Bhodan Yogna Act 1954 or Jharkhand Bhodan Yogna Act, 2000 and therefore Plot No. 1274, area 0.12 Acres is not the public land under Section 2(3) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 and declare that the respondents No. 2 has no jurisdiction to issue the notice. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ancestor of the petitioner was in possession over the land of Khata No. 43 total 4 plots including Plot No. 1274/15, area 40 decimals with definite boundary of Mouza Sankh P.S. Gawan District Giridih since 1945 and accordingly, the petitioner and Gajo Mahto jointly acquired 1.01 acres of the land including Plot No. 1274/15 area 40 decimals with definite boundary and title by Bhoodan Parcha under Bihar Bhoodan Yojna Act, 1954 by virtue of Bhoodan Parcha No. 526786 dated 30.11.1986. He further submits that the Divisional Forest Officer cum-Collector, 2026:JHHC:26257 2 Eastern Forest Division, Giridih in BPLE Case No. 55/2021 has sent a show cause notice to the petitioner as contained in letter No. 2267 dated 20.9.2021 despite the fact that the forest officials were know to the fact that the petitioner is a landless person, and under the scheme of Bihar Bhoodan Yojna Act, the petitioner was granted Bhoodan Parcha under which he perfected his title over the land in question. He also submits that the Revenue Officer as defined under Section 2(F) of the Bihar Bhoodan Yojna Act 1954 cannot pass an order on the allegation of encroachment of land belonging to Bhoodan Yojna Tenant without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 6 of the Bhoodan Yojna Rules 1955. He also submits that respondent No. 4 lodged a criminal case No. 732 of 2021 dated 3.6.2021 for an area of 12 decimal for which the respondent No. 2 has also issued show cause notice to the petitioner, in which he has appeared and filed reply. He further adds that two proceeding initiated by the respondent authorities against the petitioner at the same time for the same cause of action is bad and illegal and against the Article 21 of the Constitution. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no alternative remedy as prescribed under Section 17 and 17(A) of the Act in view of the penal provisions prescribed under the Act as because the authority has not been designated by the State Government as yet. He also submits that the aforesaid land given to the portioner under the Bihar Bhoodan Yojna Act 1954 (now Jharkhand Bhoodan Yojna Act 2000) by way of Bhoodan Parcha cannot be said to be public land under Section 2(3) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that land of Plot No. 1274 along with other plots of mouza Sankh consisting an area of 777.28 acres were declared as protected forest in exercise of powers conferred under Section 29 of the Indian Forests Act, 1929 vide notification No. C/F 17023/55- 2653R dated 31.8.1955. He further submits that after issuance of the said notification, the Forest Settlement Officer was appointed to enquire the rights, concession etc. over the protected forest land notified by the above notification and after completing the enquiry and giving full opportunity to the claimants over the rights, title and concession, if any, demarcated the plot wise area over the map as protected forest land which was duly signed on 15.9.1966 and according to the map, it is apparent that 4.45 acre of land of Plot No. 1274 has been demarcated as forest land and rest of the area in the same plot remains as non-forest land and the same has already attained finality without there 2026:JHHC:26257 3 being any objection from any corner. He also adds that on 3.6.2021 the Forester has found that the portioner has encroached the forest land over plot No. 1274 and constructed a house in a portion of it, for which, a criminal case bearing 732 of 2021 has been instituted against the petitioner for violating the provision made under Section 33(1) (C) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, thereafter pursuant to Memo No. 427 dated 18.8.2021, a proceeding bearing case No. 55/2021 under BPLE Act, 1956 has been instituted against the petitioner in the court of the Collector-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Giridih, East Forest Division for removal of encroachment over the notified protected forest land under the Bihar Public land Encroachment Act, 1956, in which notice was issued vide memo No. 2267 dated 20.9.2021 to show cause as to why the encroachment over the land of Plot No. 1274 of mouza Sankh should not be removed. 4. 4. After hearing the parties and after going through the records, I find that in this case the petitioner is claiming title over the land in question by virtue of Bhoodan Parcha, whereas the State is claiming that the land is protected forest land. Thus, there is serious dispute regarding right, title, interest and possession over the land in question, which cannot be decided by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. 5. However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue his case before respondent No. 2 in BPLE Case No. 55/2021 by producing all documents regarding his right, title, interest and possession over the land in question. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 31st August, 2026 Anu/-Cp2. Uploaded on: 07/09/2026