2026:JHHC:12222 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.2048 of 2026 Motilal Mahato aged about 71-year son of Late Harmohan Mahato resident of Chhota Gamharia, P.O. & P.S. Gamharia, District-Saraikela Kharsawan. .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Secretary Department of Revenue, Registration & Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan P.O. & P.S. Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi. 3. Deputy Commissioner Seraikella, P.O. & P.S Seraikella, District- Seraikella-Kharsawan. 4. L.R.D.C. Seraikella, P.O. & P.S Seraikella, District- Seraikella Kharsawan. 5. Circle Officer Gamharia P.O. & P.S Gamharia, District-Seraikella- Kharsawan. … Respondent(s) -------- CORAM: SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samir Kumar Lall, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III ------ 2/27.04.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh, the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella has appeared through virtual mode. 2. Purportedly based on a hopelessly time barred appeal, which the State has filed very recently, challenging the Judgment dated 14th March 2023 in Original Suit No.89 of 2019, the respondents herein are depriving the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the aforesaid Title Suit, the fruits of the decree. 3. The Judgment and Decree in Original Suit No.89 of 2019 was not an ex-parte Judgment as the State was represented through the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella and Circle Officer, Gamharia. The said suit was decreed on 18.03.2023 in presence of the parties. Even after the suit was decreed, the State did not challenge the decree by filing any appeal immediately. The matter came before this Court by 2026:JHHC:12222 2 filing this writ petition on 29.01.2026, i.e. after much time has passed from the decree. 4. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to fix the land rent in respect of the land of the petitioner situated in Mouza-Chhota Gamharia, Khata No.155, Thana No.67, Plot No.956, measuring an area of 0.53 acres. It is the case of the petitioner that the said land by the virtue of the judgment and decree passed in the Original Suit now belongs to the petitioner and the rent of which must be fixed. As the State did not fix the rent in spite of representation and in spite of the Judgment / Decree passed in the Suit, the petitioner was forced to approach this Court, claiming the relief. 5. On 2nd April, 2026, when this matter was listed, the counsel for the State prayed for some time to answer as to why the respondents have not fixed the rent of the land in question, which the petitioner claimed by virtue of the Judgment passed in Original Suit. At that point of time also, there was no whisper from the State about filing of any appeal against the Judgment dated 14.03.2023. 6. On the next date, i.e. on 08.04.2026, the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh was present virtually and he assured that the matter will be looked into and an appropriate order would be passed in this case. He was made aware of the decree in civil suit. On that day also, the Deputy Commissioner also did not whisper about any intention of filing any appeal. An impression was given that since there is a favourable decision of a competent Civil Court having jurisdiction over the land in question, the Judgment 2026:JHHC:12222 3 passed therein should be honoured. 7. Again, when the matter was listed on 20th April 2026, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that they will file affidavit by that date. Thus, the time was granted. 8. Today, when the matter is listed, it has been submitted by the petitioner that the rent has not been fixed. The State counsel now submits that an appeal has been filed under Section 96 of CPC by the State, challenging the aforesaid Judgment of the Civil Court passed in Original Suit No.89 of 2019 on 16.04.2026. 9. The fact that the appeal was filed was neither disclosed on 20th April 2026, nor earlier when the matter was taken up, or when the Deputy Commissioner appeared earlier any remotest impression was given that the State will file or was intending to file any appeal. Rather an impression was given that the decree will be honoured. This clearly suggests that this Court was taken for a ride by the Deputy Commissioner. This was not at all expected from the Deputy Commissioner. 10. Now when much water has flown and this Court repeatedly directed the respondents to honour the Judgment dated 14th March 2023 passed by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in Original Suit No.89 of 2019, the Respondents after much delay, i.e. more than three years, has filed an appeal against the Judgment. This is not a litigation with good intention. The State now wants to nullify the prayer made in this writ, by belatedly challenging the basis, i.e. the judgment and decree. The State admittedly was a party in the Civil 2026:JHHC:12222 4 Suit as Deputy Commissioner and Circle Officer were defendants No.1 and 2. The Judgment was passed in favour of the petitioner, but surprisingly the State kept quiet for years. It is only when this Court pressurized the Deputy Commissioner and others to comply the aforesaid Judgment, instead of doing so, they have filed an Appeal against the said Judgment. Thus, this Court is not taking cognizance of that hopelessly barred appeal, which the respondents have filed, only to deprive the petitioner, the fruit of the judgment. 11. Non-filing of any Appeal against Original Suit No.89 of 2019 immediately or within the limitation period, in spite of knowledge, suggests that they did not have any grievance against the said judgment. The State’s appeal at much belated stage, only when the order was passed by this Court in this writ petition, clearly goes to show some mala fide intention on the part of the State in filing the Appeal, more when today some private respondent appeared by filing an intervention application. It can be that the private respondents have triggered the State to do so. 12. Thus, I direct the State to immediately accept rent and issue rent receipt in relation to the property, which is covered in the Original Suit No.89 of 2019 within a week from today itself. 13. So far as claim of the intervenors is concerned, if they were not a party to the suit for their rights, title and interest, they should approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction independently. If there are other person who claims independent title over the land, it will be open to them to file a separate suit also. 2026:JHHC:12222 5 14. Let a copy of this Order be communicated to the Home Secretary and UPSC. 15. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. Pending IA, if any is also disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 27.04.2026 R.Kumar