Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:9106-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 1999 of 2026 Manohar Singh, aged about 67 years, S/o Lae Dwarika Singh, R/o Babhantoli, P.O. & P.S. Giridih (Town), District Giridih (Jharkhand). ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development & Housing, Government of Jharkhand, having its Office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) 834004; 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District Giridih, (Jharkhand); 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Giridih, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District Giridih, (Jharkhand); 4. The Circle Officer, Giridih, having its office at Circle Office Giridih, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District Giridih (Jharkhand); 5. The Municipal Commissioner, Giridih Municipal Corporation, office at J.P. Chowk, Tower Chowk, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District Giridih (Jharkhand) 815301; 6. The Administrator, Giridih Municipal Corporation, office at J.P. Chowk, Tower Chowk, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District Giridih (Jharkhand) 815301. … … ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, Advocate For the State: Mr. Shubham Gautam, A.C. to A.A.G.-V For Resp. Nos.5&6: Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Advocate --------- 02/Dated: 01.04.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner challenges tender dated 25.09.2025 issued by the Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Giridih, insofar as it relates to construction of PCC Road from Ward No.31 Babhantoli Kali Babu Haata Rajendra Nagar Mohalla to the Main Road Babhantoli to the Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:9106-DB house of Ramesh Mishra. Petitioner has alleged that this stretch includes plot nos.80, 81, 83 and 118 under Khata No. 38 which, the petitioner claims to be owner in possession. He challenges on the ground that no acquisition proceedings have been initiated and, therefore, the floating of such tender or attempting to construct a PCC Road would violate the petitioner’s rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution. 3. The petitioner has claimed that the property in question is an ancestral property jointly owned by the petitioner and other co-sharers being descendants of their great-grandfather Loko Rai in whose name this property stands recorded. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that some portion of the property was purchased by the wife of the petitioner. 4. Admittedly, the property is not recorded in the Revenue Records in the name of the petitioner. The issue of whether Loko Rai was indeed the great-grandfather of the petitioner would give rise to a disputed question of fact. There is nothing on record to show with some reasonable certainty the transactions that have taken place since the recording the rights in the name of Loko Rai in the Revenue Records. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is nothing wrong in constructing a PCC Road over the kaccha road existing at the site. The learned counsel for the petitioner denies that there was any kaccha road existing at the site and points out that in the past, a similar tender was dropped by the authorities. 5. Upon considering the averments in the petition and the documents supporting the same, we are satisfied that the issues Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:9106-DB raised in this petition would involve adjudication of disputed questions of fact regards the ownership and possession, existence of earlier road which is now sought to be concretised, etc. Such disputes cannot normally be raised in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner has also not made out any exceptional or extraordinary case for bypassing normal remedy of having such issues adjudicated and sorted out. If the petitioner indeed feels he has a good or prima facie case, nothing prevented him from approaching the civil court to obtain appropriate final or temporary relief. 6. For the above reasons, we dismiss this petition, with liberty to the petitioner to resort to the ordinary civil remedy for the protection of his alleged rights in the property. 7. None of the observations in this order shall come in the way of the petitioner, in case the petitioner indeed takes recourse to an ordinary civil remedy. Any action initiated by the petitioner will have to be decided on its own merits and in accordance with the law. 8. With the above liberty, we dispose of this petition. No costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Dated: 01.04.2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/ Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 02.04.2026