2026:JHHC:11317 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4156 of 2018 ------- 1. Jagannath Mahato, aged about 56 years, son of Late Purna Chandra Mahato; 2. Baidyanath Mahato, aged about 62 years, son of Late Purna Chandra Mahato. Both resident of Gwala Basti, Ghorabandha, P.O. and P.S.-Govindpur, District-East Singhbhum. …… Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, P.O. and P.S.-Sakchi, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum. 3. Circle Officer,Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S. -Sakchi, Town -Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum. 4. Lal Bihari Mahato son of Late Mangal Chandra Mahato, resident of Gwala Basti, Ghorabandha, P.O. and P.S.-Govindpur, District-East Singhbhum. …..Respondents ------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Navin Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv. : Mr. D. K. Karmakar, Adv. :Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, AC to SC(L&C)-II ------- CAV ON:02/02/2026 Pronounced ON. 18/04/2026 The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following relief:- (i) For issuance of in appropriate Writ/Writs, Order/orders, direction/directions to set aside the order dated 21- 07-2018 passed (Annexure-5) B.P.L.E. Appeal No.27 of 2016-2017, (Annexure-5) by the Learned Court of Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder Learned Court of Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur has been pleased to dismissed the B.P.L.E Appeal No. 27 of 2016-2017 filed by the petitioners and has affirmed the order dated 26-07-2016 passed in B.P.L.E Case No.45/2007-08 by the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur. (i)(a) For quashing of order dated 06.05.2016 (Annexure-6) passed by Res. No.3 i.e. Circle Officer, Jamshedpur in 2026:JHHC:11317 2 B.P.L.E Case No.45/07-08 has illegally directed the petitioners to remove the encroachment. (i)(b) For quashing of order dated 26.07.2016 passed by Respondent No.3 i.e., Circle Officer, Jamshepur in B.P.L.E Case No.45/07-08 (Review) dismissing Review petition filed by the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are as follows: (i) As per the Khatian of the year 1937, the land appertaining to Khata No. 40, Khesra No. 503, measuring an area of 1 acre 40 decimals, belongs to Purna Chandra Mahato, son of Lakkhi Kanta Mahato, and the possession thereof has continuously remained with his successors. The case of the petitioners is that out of the aforesaid Khesra No. 503, a new Khesra No. 1012 was carved out and the said fact also finds affirmation in the order dated 10.01.1969 passed in Case No. 5008/66 by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Singhbhum. (ii) The controversy arose when a notice dated 14.11.2007 was issued under Section 3 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act (hereinafter referred to as the “BPLE Act”) calling upon the petitioners to show cause with respect to alleged encroachment over lands bearing Khata No. 121, Plot No. 1012 (part) measuring 1.15 acres, Khata No. 122, Plot No. 713 (part) measuring 0.02 acre, and Plot No. 1008 (part) measuring 0.02 acre, situated at Mouza Ghorabandha. (iii) Pursuant thereto, the petitioners filed their show cause denying the allegation of encroachment over the land in question. The Circle Officer, Jamshedpur, however, vide order dated 06.05.2016, held that the petitioners had encroached upon 1.15 acres of land within Plot No. 1012 of Mouza Ghorabandha. 2026:JHHC:11317 3 (iv) Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred a review petition on 13.05.2016. In the meantime, respondent no. 4 also filed an intervention petition dated 25.05.2016 in the proceeding. The Circle Officer, Jamshedpur, thereafter, vide order dated 26.07.2016 passed in B.P.L.E. Case No. 45 of 2007-08, dismissed the review petition primarily on the ground that in the recent survey khatian, the land in question has been recorded as Government land. Thereafter, the appellate authority, Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur , vide order dated 21.07.2018, dismissed the said appeal and affirmed the order dated 26.07.2016 passed by the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the very foundation of the impugned proceeding under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the land in question has erroneously been recorded in the name of the State. He has further contended that such entry was made during survey under Section 83 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, which was objected to by filing an application under Section 90 of the said Act, culminating in the order dated 10.01.1969 passed in Case No. 5008 of 1966 by the competent authority, whereby the mistake in the record of rights has been acknowledged and corrected. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that once the entry in favour of the State itself stands corrected, the very basis for initiation of proceeding under the BPLE Act ceases to exist, and as such, the impugned action is wholly without jurisdiction and fit to be interfered with by this Court. 2026:JHHC:11317 4 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4- Intervenor has submitted that it would appear from the order dated 06.05.2016 passed by the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur that the petitioners have failed to produce a single chit of paper in their favour with respect to the alleged encroached land measuring an area of 1.15 acres within Plot No. 1012. He further submitted that the said land is Government land and as per the Khatiyan published in the year 1964, the said Plot No. 1011 stands recorded in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar, wherein in the remarks column it has specifically been mentioned that Mahendra Mahato, son of Bidyadhar Mahato, is in illegal possession. He had further submitted that Plot No. 1012/1126 is neither mentioned in the Khatiyan; nor in any Naksha/Map, while Plot No. 1012/1127 under Khata No. 71 measuring an area of 18 decimals is recorded in the name of Mahendra Mahato, and Plot No. 1012/1122 under Khata No. 121 is recorded as Government land, and Khata No. 122, Plot No. 713 and Plot No. 1008 are recorded as public land. Learned counsel has also submitted that Annexure-1, being the certified copy of the order in Case No. 5008 of 1966, is a forged and fabricated document; and upon obtaining details of Case No. 5008 of 1966 through the RTI, it reveals that the said case pertains to two different persons, namely Lakhi Kanta Mahato and Narayan Mahato, both having same case number, i.e., 5008 of 1966, and thus it is not clear whether the said matters were amalgamated and the order on record exclusively relates to the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State has submitted that averments in para 6 to 11 of the instant 2026:JHHC:11317 5 writ application, in context to the Khatian of 1937 and order dated 10.01.1969 by the Assistant Settlement Officer, require no comments as they are matter of record. 6. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the rival parties and after going through the materials on record, it transpires that the land in question has wrongly been recorded in the name of the State of Bihar in the record of rights. It further transpires from record that such entry was made under Section 83 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, which was objected to by filing an application under Section 90 of the said Act and pursuant thereto; the Settlement Officer, upon considering the objection, passed an order dated 10.01.1969 in Case No. 5008 of 1966, holding that the entry made in the name of the State of Bihar was erroneous. The said order has been brought on record as Annexure-1. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the said order citing bona-fide mistake and error is extracted hereinbelow: “प्रतिवेदन दोनों पक्षों के वादी एवं प्रतिवातदयों द्वारा भली भााँति से अवलोकन तकया दोनों ही पक्ष इससे सहमि हैं। प्रतिवेदन के अनुसार सी. एस. सवे खािा संख्या - 503 से वितमान सवे खेसरा संख्या 1012 बना है। सी. एस. सवे खेसरा संख्या 503 से लक्खीकान्ि महिो तपिा सुयु महिो द्वारा ढोल बंदोबस्ि द्वारा जमींदार राजा जगदीश चन्रदेव धवलदेव से कुल रकबा - एक एकड़ चालीस तिसतमल भूतम की खरीदगी की थी जो वितमान सवे में 1012 का अंश हुआ िथा लक्खीकान्ि महिो वादी उक्त भूतम में दखल कब्जा 01.01.1956 से पहले होने का दावा पुति तकया, वितमान सवे के सेटेलमेंट कमतचाररयों द्वारा बोनाफाइि तमस्टेक के कारण 1012 का अंश में लक्खीकान्ि महिो द्वारा खरीदगी भूतम खेसरा संख्या 503 का रकबा एक एकड़ चालीस तिसतमल कायम कर तदया गया जो लक्खी कान्ि महिो के दखल कब्जा में है, जो संभातवि भूल के कारण तबहार सरकार के नाम दजत हो गया है।” (emphasis supplied) 2026:JHHC:11317 6 7. Having regards to the above it is evident that the authorities, while initiating proceeding under the provisions of the Public Land Encroachment Act, have failed to properly appreciate the said document, and as such, the entire proceeding suffers from illegality. 8. Though learned counsel for the private respondent no. 4 has disputed the said document by contending that Annexure-1 is a forged and fabricated document; however, this Court finds from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State that in reply to paragraph nos. 6 to 11 of the writ application, it has been specifically stated, at para 9 of the Counter Affidavit dated 07.05.2019, that the averments made therein are matters of record and require no comment. Thus, the State, being the competent authority and custodian of the records, has neither disputed; nor controverted, the existence or correctness of the order dated 10.01.1969. 9. Further, from the order sheet of this case, it further transpires that this Court, vide order dated 13.06.2019, having taken note of the specific dispute raised with respect to the legality and propriety of the order dated 10.01.1969, had consciously granted opportunity to the State to seek specific instruction and place the correct factual position on record. 10. However, despite lapse of more than six years from the date of the said order, no supplementary counter affidavit or instruction has been brought on record by the State controverting or even explaining the status of the aforesaid document. 2026:JHHC:11317 7 11. In absence of any rebuttal from the State, this Court finds no reason to discard the document relied upon by the petitioners, particularly when the same results from a statutory proceeding under the provisions of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. 12. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that once the State has not disputed the document; rather has treated the same as a matter of record, the objection raised by the private respondent with respect to its veracity cannot be accepted in absence of any rebuttal from the State. The authenticity of an official document cannot be permitted to be unsettled merely on the basis of allegation made by a private respondent. 13. This Court, therefore, finds that the foundation of the proceeding initiated under the Public Land Encroachment Act stands vitiated. 14. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the Respondent No.3 dated 06.05.2016 and 26.07.2016 as well as the order passed by the appellate authority dated 21.07.2018, are hereby, quashed and set aside. 15. The writ petition stands allowed and the interim order of status quo stands merged with the present order. Pending I.A(s), if any, also stand closed. 16. However, the private respondent is at liberty to raise his grievances before the appropriate forum. (Deepak Roshan, J.) April 18, 2026 Uploaded on 20/04/2026 Fahim/- AFR