Jharkhand High Court
Mahadev Das @ Kumar Dev vs Kalakar Pradhan on 11 August, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:22881-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 91 of 2024
Mahadev Das @ Kumar Dev, son of Shri Surendra Das, resident of
Village- Dugdha, P.O. & P.S.- Gamharia, District- Seraikella-Kharsawan
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. Kalakar Pradhan, son of Late Ranjeet Pradhan, resident of village-
Jhargovindpur, Dugdha, P.O. & P.S.- Gamharia, District- Seraikella-
Kharsawan
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan
3. The Circle Officer, Gamharia Circle, Gamharia, District- Seraikella-
Kharsawan
4. The Senior Postal Superintendent-cum-Central Public Information
Officer, Singhbhum Area, Jamshedpur
5. Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information
Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi ... ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Appellant : In person (through virtual mode)
For the Resp. Nos. 2, 3 & 5 : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G.
For the Resp. No. 4 : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I
Mrs. Niki Sinha, C.G.C
Order No. 08 Dated: 11.08.2025
The present interlocutory application has been filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 69 days in
filing the instant Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order/judgment
dated 18.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.
6849 of 2023.
2. Learned counsel for the respective respondents do not oppose
the said application.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons
stated in the present interlocutory application, the delay of 69 days in
filing the instant Letters Patent Appeal is condoned.
4. I.A. No. 5131 of 2024 is accordingly allowed.
5. Heard.
6. Aggrieved with the order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the
2025:JHHC:22881-DB
learned writ court in W.P.(C) No. 6849 of 2023, the writ
petitioner/appellant has filed the instant appeal.
7. The facts are not in dispute that the appellant approached the
writ court seeking direction regarding cancellation of the sale deed
executed by the respondent no. 1 on the ground that though the
respondent no. 1 had entered into an agreement with the appellant for
sale of the land in question, but the said respondent is selling the same
to several other persons.
8. The learned writ court held that the prayer made by the
petitioner in the writ petition could not be adjudicated by the court in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
and the appropriate and proper remedy was to file a suit.
9. Having heard the appellant as well as the counsel for the
respective respondents, we find no reason to interfere with the order of
the writ court in view of the fact that no relief whatsoever has been
claimed against the State and if any relief has been claimed against an
individual, who is not discharging any public duty, the dispute is purely
private between the parties which, under no circumstance, can be
adjudicated upon under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. Consequently, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is
accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is reserved with the appellant to
approach the civil court, if so advised.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
N.A.F.R.
Manish/Ritesh
