Jharkhand High Court
Lal Swatantra Nath Shahdeo vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 June, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:14824-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A No.597 of 2024
---------
1. Lal Swatantra Nath Shahdeo, aged about 75 Years, Son
of Late Chunnu Lal Ambika Prasad Nath Shahdeo.
2. Lal Nitesh Nath Shahdeo, aged about 44 Years.
3. Lal Rahul Nath Shahdeo, aged about 39 years.
Sl No.2 and 3 both sons of Late Lal Ran Vijay Nath
Shahdeo. All Resident of Mohalla Aryapuri, Ratu Road,
P.O. - Hehal, P.S. - Sukhdeo Nagar, District - Ranchi.
..... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Latehar, P.O. & P.S. Latehar,
District - Latehar.
3. Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Latehar, P.O. & P.S.
Latehar, District - Latehar.
4. Circle Officer, Latehar, P.O. & P.S. Latehar, District -
Latehar.
5. Rekha Devi @ Rekha Gupta, aged about 48 years wife of
Sri Sunil Kumar, Resident of Shaheed Chowk, Main
Road, Latehar, P.O. & P.S. - Latehar, District - Latehar.
..... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate
Mr. G. R. Karan, Advocate
Mr. Vineet Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Shankalp Goswami, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Yogesh Modi, A.C to A.A.G - 1A
For the Resp. No.5 : Mr. S. K. Sharma, Advocate
Mr. P. K. Rahul, Advocate
Mr. Rishabh Ranjan, Advocate
---------
th
06/Dated: 09 June, 2025
1. The instant Letters Patent Appeal is directed against
the order/ judgment dated 18.09.2024, passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.401 of
2024.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at
length.
2025:JHHC:14824-DB
3. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel, on instruction
from the advocate on record, Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, learned
counsel for the appellant, has shown his willingness to
withdraw this appeal in view of the liberty having being
granted by the learned Single Judge in paragraph - 7 of the
order impugned, wherein it has been clarified that the
dismissal of the writ petition will not prejudice the pending
title suit before the competent court of civil jurisdiction in
the added word that the suit will be decided on its own
merit without prejudice to the said order.
4. However, Mr. Das, learned counsel has submitted by
referring to paragraph - 5 of the impugned judgment,
wherein the learned Single Judge has made reference
about the creation of jamabandi in favour of respondent
No.5 by further referring regarding the settled position of
law that the long jamabandi cannot be cancelled and if
such dispute is there, only the competent court of civil
jurisdiction is competent to pass such order.
5. It has been submitted that it is not a case of
cancellation of long jamabandi rather it is a case, as would
be evident from the order passed by the circle officer or
the appellate authority or the revisional authority under
Sections 14, 15 & 16 of the Bihar Tenant's Holding
(Maintenance of Record) Act, 1973 that it is a case of
infirmity said to be committed by the authorities in the
matter of issuance of correction slip.
6. It has been submitted that since the aforesaid
2025:JHHC:14824-DB
reference is contrary to the record and if it will be allowed
to be the evidence, the same may prejudice the pending
title suit as has been observed by the learned Single Judge
in paragraph -7 of the impugned judgment.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-writ
petitioner has also agreed with respect to submission to
the effect that it is not a case of cancellation of long
jamabandi rather it is a case of infirmity said to be
committed in issuance of the correction slip.
8. In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned
counsel for the respondent herein, who is also respondent
in the writ petition, this Court is of the view that what has
been observed by the learned Single Judge regarding the
cancellation of long jamabandi is said to be created in
fovour of respondent No.5, appears to be error of record.
9. This Court, in view of the submission made on behalf
of the writ petitioner appellant, who has sought for
withdrawal of the instant appeal with a liberty to contest
the title suit with further indulgence for early disposal of
the suit, is of the view that such leave is granted without
any opposition to the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
10. The instant appeal therefore, is allowed to be
withdrawn. Accordingly, it is disposed of.
11. The parties are at liberty to cooperate in the early
disposal of the suit without seeking any unnecessary
adjournment.
2025:JHHC:14824-DB
12. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observation and
direction, this appeal stands disposed of keeping into
consideration the observation already made by the learned
Single Judge in paragraph -7 of the order impugned.
13. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Ravi-Chandan/-
