2026:JHHC:9133 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1772 of 2026 ------ 1. Santosh Kumar Mahto, aged about 61 years, S/O Late Batul Mahto. 2. Manindra Nath Mahto, aged about 49 years, S/O Late Surendra Mahto. 3. Sunil Kumar Mahto, aged about 55 years, S/O Late Khagendra Nath Mahto. All residents of Village- Solagidih, P.O.-Chas, P.S. Chas, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, at Chas, P.O. & P.S.-Chas, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand. 3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chas, P.O. & P.S. Chas, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand. 4. Banwarilal Agarwal, S/O Late Moti Lal Agarwal, R/O- Banshidih, Taranagar, Chas, P.O. & P.S.- Chas, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand. 5. Deepak Modi, S/O. Late Nand Kishore Modi, R/O. Gujrat Colony, Chas, P.O. & P.S.- Chas, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand. … … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) :Mr. Sharavan Kumar, Advoate. For the Respondent(s) :Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III. ------ 02/ 23rd March, 2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioner is seeking to assert a right to use the land of others as a road, claiming such use since the time of his predecessor-in-interest. 3. From the records, it is admitted by the petitioner that the aforesaid area being used as a road does not belong to him rather, it forms part of land recorded in the names of others. 4. This clearly suggests that the petitioner is using the land of others for ingress and egress. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to allow his prayer, which, in fact, cannot be granted. He is seeking easementary rights 5. No one has the right to use another’s land without appropriate authority or sanction of law. 6. If the petitioner claims easementary right, he should approach the competent civil court, as several factual aspects are required to be determined and the 2026:JHHC:9133 2 rights of the parties must be established. 7. The revenue authorities cannot pass orders in such types of disputes. The right of easement has to be determined by the civil court and not by the revenue authority. 8. Thus, the petitioner is directed to approach the concerned civil court for the relief he seeks. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 23.03.2026 Amar/CP-2 Uploaded on:-01.04.2026