2026:JHHC:9518 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.150 of 2018 ------ Gautam Kumar Mishra, son of Baleshwar Mishr, resident of Village + P.O. Kaswa, P.S. Meharma, District Godda. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda, District Godda. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda, District Godda. 4. The Anchal Adhikari, Anchal Meharma, P.O. & P.S. Meharma, District Godda. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Prashant Kr. Rai, Advocate ------ 07/ 06.04.2026 Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned Order bearing No.52/2017 as contained in Memo No.1660, dated 25.12.2017 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner has been directed to vacate the land under notice. 3. After going through the impugned Order, I find that through the same, the respondent – Circle Officer, Meharma, while mentioning the encroached lands (Mouza Kasba) on the basis of investigation report as Daag No.557 having Rakba 00-06-04 dhur, nature - daanr, Daag No.558, having Rakba 01-00-11 dhur, nature gaddha and Daag No.961, having Rakba 00-02-08 dhur, nature – Raasta, directed the Zonal Inspector, Meharma, to ensure vacation 2026:JHHC:9518 2 of the aforementioned encroached lands by 12.01.2018, which are alleged to have been encroached by six encroachers. 4. During the course of argument, it has been brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioner’s counsel that pursuant to the aforesaid impugned Order, no action has been taken to remove / dispossess the petitioner, since a status quo is operating in this case pursuant to order dated 21.02.2019 passed in this case by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. 5. Considering that the impugned Order is dated 25.12.2017 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), and the fact that since now we are in the year 2026, I direct the respondents that if they intend to dispossess the petitioner for any good reason, they will issue a fresh Notice to the petitioner and thereafter will initiate a proceeding to remove the petitioner from the area in question. Since the petitioner is claiming title and possession over the property since the year 1912, the Authority will consider the defence of the petitioner also. 5.1. Only after the respondents are fully assured that the petitioner has got no right or title over the property in question, they can proceed to remove the alleged encroachment. 5.2. It is also made clear that without a proper proceeding under law, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed solely on the basis of issuance of a Notice. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 06th April, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 08.04.2026