RAMBHAJAN PATHAK REPRESENTED BY AMBRISH PANDEY v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
WPC/2397/2026 · 2026-04-13
Sri Ananda Sen
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 6180 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 6180 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:10548
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 2397 of 2026
-------
Rambhajan Pathak, Age 67 years, Son of Late Yadunandan Pathak, Resident of Behind Police Line village-Dharmpur, P.O.-Dharmpur, P.S. and District- Latehar, Represented by Power of Attorney Holder, Sri Ambrish Pandey, Age 62 Years, Son of Late Ramachal Pandey, Resident of village-Chandwa, P.O. and P.S.-Chandwa, District-Latehar, (Jharkhand)
….. Petitioner(s).
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Latehar, P.O., P.S. and District-Latehar (Jharkhand).
4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Latehar, P.O.. P.S. and District-Latehar (Jharkhand).
5. The Circle Officer, Latehar, P.O., P.S. and District-Latehar (Jharkhand).
… Respondents.
-------
CORAM :
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Trivedi, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. S. Gupta, AC to AAG-III
Ms. Rishi Bharti, AC to AAG-III
------ 02/ 13.04.2026: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is challenging the notice dated 24.05.2025 issued in Land Encroachment Case No.02 of 2025-26 and notice dated 05.02.2026 issued in Land Encroachment Case No.04 of 2025-25 under Section 3 and 6(2) of the Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 respectively by the respondent No.5-Circle Officer, Latehar.
3. Since the petitioner has been served only with notices, I am not inclined to interfere with the same as the same cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or improper.
4. The defense, which the petitioner has taken, should be taken before the authorities, who can consider the same in right perspective. Thus, I am not inclined to interfere with the notices. Liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the authority, who has served the notices for encroachment to the petitioner.
5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.
(ANANDA SEN, J.) 13th April, 2026 Madhav/- Uploaded on:17/04/2026