Sohan Lal Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 2610 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sohan Lal Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 April, 2026

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                                          2026:JHHC:9484

   N THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    W.P.(C) No. 2193 of 2019
                              .........

1. Sohan Lal Mishra, aged about 52 years, son of Late Mohan Lal Mishra.

2. Diwakar Jha, aged about 47 years, son of Late Babaji Jha. Both residents of Bhur Bhura More, Bam Bam Baba Bramachari Path, B. Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District-Deoghar. ..... Petitioner (s) Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, Department of Revenue & Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.Jagarnathpur, District- Deoghar.

2. The Deputy Commissioner, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District-Deoghar.

3. Sub-Divisional Officer, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District-Deoghar.

4. Circle Officer Mohanpur, P.O. & P.S.-Mohanpur, District-Deoghar.

5. Jaydeo Parihast, S/o Kamala Prasad Parihas, R/o Pandit B.N. Jha, Chalwal Jha Path, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District-Jharkhand.

..... Respondent(s) .........

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN .......

For the Petitioner(s): M/s. Indrajit Sinha, Arbind Kumar, Advocates For the Resp.-State: Mr. Ankit Kumar, A.C. to G.P.-VI .........

C.A.V. ON: 18/03/2026 PRONOUNCED ON: 02 /04/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The subject matter of the present writ petition concerns

a piece of land situated at Thana No. 564, Khata No. 18, Plot

No. 66, measuring an area of 2.05 acres, located at Mausa

Chaksirimisrbandh.

BACKGROUND FACTS:

3. The subject land was purchased by one Shanti Lata

Sarkar through registered Sale Deed dated 16.10.1946 from

2026:JHHC:9484

Shivanand Brahmachari @ Bharat Chandra Chakravorty,

Gurupita Swami Dhurv Nand Giri. The name of Late Shanti

Lata Sarkar is duly recorded in the entries made in the

Register-II.

4. Shanti Lata Sarkar died leaving behind her legal

representatives namely Santosh Sarkar, Ashutosh Sarkar,

Paritosh Sarkar, Bhabatosh Sarkar and Mantosh Sarkar (five

sons) and five daughters namely Radha Rani Ghosh, Sudha

Rani Mazumdar, Shobha Rani Nandi Mazumdar, Bibha Nandi

Mazumdar and Nibha Rani Sinha.

5. In the meantime, Holding Tax Receipt is issued in the

name of Anjan Sarkar (legal representative of Late Shanti

Lata Sarkar). The Holding Tax Receipt was issued for the

Financial Year 2016-17 and 2017-18 and legal representative

of Late Shanti Lata Sarkar has deposited the Holding Tax.

The Rent Receipts are duly issued in the name of the legal

representatives of Late Shanti Lata Sarkar.

6. The legal representatives of Late Shanti Lata Sarkar

executed a registered Power of Attorney in favour of the

petitioners on 09.02.2017 for the managing, supervising,

looking after and control of the matters and to commence,

prosecute, carryon or defend or resist all suits and other

actions and proceedings or to be added as a party or

withdraw the same concerning the properties or any part

2026:JHHC:9484

thereof in any court in civil, criminal, revenue or revisional

jurisdiction, including jurisdiction of the High Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India and to sign and verify

all plaints, written statements in connection with the land

bearing plot no. 66 Jamabandi No. 18 having an area of 1.86

Acres and Plot No. 68, Jamabandi No. 15 having an area of

0.14 Acres a total area of 2.00 Acres under Jamabandi No. 18

and 15 situated at Mouza Chaksirimisir Bandh, Mouza

No.564, Mohanpur, Deoghar.

PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER:

7. The Circle Officer, Mohanpur issued letter dated 08/09.

02. 2017, directing the petitioner to stop construction of the

land in question with a further direction to appear before the

said authority on 14 February 2017, along with documents

relating to the land. Upon receipt of the above said letter the

petitioner appeared before the concerned authority and filed

its written representation along with the relevant documents.

The petitioner has stated that the petitioners visited the office

of the Circle Officer, Mohanpur on 7 July 2017 and

submitted its representation along with the documents and

made a prayer to reject the complaint made by private person

regarding the allegation of encroachment over the land.

Without passing any order on the representations made by

the petitioner, the Circle Officer, Mohanpur issued a notice to

2026:JHHC:9484

the 16 Anna Raiyats of Mouza Chaksirimisrbandh, directing

them to file objections in connection with the land.

Thereafter, the petitioners have claimed to visit the office of

the Circle Officer, Mohanpur on 26 August 2017, and filed a

representation with request to drop the enquiry. Since no

decision was taken by the Circle Officer, Mohanpur, the

petitioner was constrained to file a Writ Petition before the

High Court of Jharkhand, which was numbered as WPC No.

2431 of 2018. The above stated petition was disposed of by

the court by an order dated 26 June 2018, directing the circle

officer Mohanpur to dispose of the proceedings initiated by

him on the basis of documents available on record and after

providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners

as well as the concerned parties within a period of 16 weeks

and also kept all the issues opened before the authority.

8. Pursuant to the disposal of above writ applications

petitioners filed another representation along with the order

passed by the High Court dated 26 June 2018, followed by

another representation dated 8 September 2018.

Surprisingly, the circle officer, Mohanpur issued notice dated

22 October 2018, directing the petitioner to file the necessary

papers on the basis that the petitioner has not filed any

documents till that date and further directed to appear before

the authority on 25 October 2018. Thereafter, the petitioners

2026:JHHC:9484

appeared before the said authority and filed a detailed written

note of arguments on 27 October 2018.

9. The Circle officer without considering the contention

raised by the petitioner and also without ruling as to his own

jurisdiction by the impugned order dated 12 December 2018,

rejected the claim of the petitioner and held that the nature of

the land has been recorded as Gair Mazurwa Bandh which is

non-transferable and hence made the prohibitory order dated

08/09. 02.2017 restraining the petitioner from making any

construction over the subject land absolute.

In the order dated 12.12.2018 it was also recorded that

an order has already been passed to install a plaque

indicating that is a subject land is a government land and it

is in the nature of a pond by referring to an order dated 13

March 2018 passed in WP (PIL) No. 1972 of 2017.

The Public Interest Litigation

10. At this juncture it would be pertinent to mention

that the land in question was previously the subject of a

Public Interest Litigation, registered as WP (PIL) No. 1972 of

2017, which was filed by one Jayadeo Parihast. In the said

PIL, the prayer was made that the land, recorded as a

'bandh', was being encroached upon by illegal occupants, and

therefore, the State may be directed to take appropriate

action to vacate the encroachment and restore the land in

2026:JHHC:9484

accordance with law.

The petitioner in the present writ petition has

specifically contended that it was not made a party in the

aforesaid public interest litigation. This assertion remains

undisputed by any party in the current proceedings. The

above-mentioned public interest litigation was disposed of by

a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 13.03.2018,

wherein the respondent State was directed to look into the

matter. The Court further directed that if any encroachment

or illegal occupation of the premises, as alleged in the writ

petition, was found, the same should be vacated strictly in

accordance with law.

The Stand in The Counter Affidavit.

11. The respondents in their counter affidavit and another

affidavit filed subsequently have asserted that the present

petition has been filed by the power of attorney holders and a

picture is sought to be painted as if they are the actual

owners of the land. In the affidavit, it has been stated that a

complaint was made by 32 raiyats lead by One Shamsher

Singh, stating there in that the petitioners are trying to

encroach upon the public pond, and on the basis of such

complaint a proceeding was initiated and the notice dated

08/09. 02. 2017 was issued to the petitioners. The Circle

Officer pursuant to the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in

2026:JHHC:9484

WPC No. 2431 of 2018, heard the matter and on the basis of

the materials available and record, and after giving an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, came to a conclusion

that the entry made in the Gantzer's settlement reflects that

plot no. 66 was a bandh and that the petitioners have no

right over the same. Reference was also made to a report

dated 5 February 2017 prepared by the revenue Karamchari

which also recorded that the land in question is a pond over a

Government land.

GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE

12. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order

dated 12 December 2018 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction

of a Circle Officer to pass an order of this nature. The

petitioners have in this regard, submitted that there is no

statutory provision, which authorises the Circle Officer to

pass an order in the nature of a prohibitory injunction,

restraining the lawful owner to use his property. In this

context, it was submitted that even an order of a court

cannot confer jurisdiction on an Authority. It was also

contended that the finding that the land is a pond/ bandh is

factually incorrect.

It has been submitted that this Court vide an order

dated 07.07.2025, in order to ascertain whether there exists a

pond over Plot No. 66, directed the Deputy Commissioner,

2026:JHHC:9484

Deoghar to file Google satellite imaginary with north on the

top along with the actual map drawn by the Anchal Amin and

actual photographs of Plot Nos. 66. Pursuant to the above

order, and affidavit was filed by the respondents on

01.09.2025 in which it was, inter alia, stated currently the

plot is a plain land. The maps / photographs annexed with

the affidavit also show that no pond exists on subject Plot No.

66.

ANALYSIS & REASONING

13. After going through the pleadings on record and upon

considering the oral arguments of the parties the issues

which need to be addressed by this Court are as follows:

i. Whether the Circle Officer, Mohanpur had the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings to injunct the petitioner from carrying out any construction activities and pass the impugned order ?

ii. Whether the subject matter of this writ petition i.e. a piece of land situated at Thana No. 564, Khata No. 18, Plot No. 66, measuring an area of 2.05 acres, located at Mauza Chaksirimisrbandh is a Public Pond or not ?

14. With respect to the first issue relating to jurisdiction of

the Circle Officer, Mohanpur it was contended by the

respondents that the said proceedings were initiated on a

public complaint that a public pond was being encroached

and thereafter this Court vide an order dated 13 March 2018

passed in WP (PIL) No. 1972 of 2017 had also directed to take

action in the matter of encroachment. Further, in WPC No.

2026:JHHC:9484

2431 of 2018 this Court had also directed to conclude the

proceedings initiated.

It is settled law that conferment of jurisdiction is a

legislative function and that there is no statute which

authorises a Circle Officer to pass an order of or in the nature

of an injunction restraining the petitioner from making any

construction over the land in question. In Jagmittar Sain

Bhagat & Ors. v. Director Health Services, Haryana &

Ors., reported in (2013) 10 SCC 136 the Supreme Court

held as under:

"9. Indisputably, it is a settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior court, and if the court passes a decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to nullity as the matter goes to the root of the cause...... The finding of a court or tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/inexecutable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction. Similarly, if a court/tribunal inherently lacks jurisdiction, acquiescence of party equally should not be permitted to perpetrate and perpetuate defeating of the legislative animation. The court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the statute. In such eventuality the doctrine of waiver also does not apply."

15. It is also equally true that an order of a Court cannot

confer jurisdiction on any authority if the said authority does

not possess the competence to adjudicate disputes of such

nature. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme

Court of India in the case of Ranjit Kumar Murmu v.

Lachmi Narayan Bhomroj and others, reported in [(2013)

14 SCC 572] wherein it was held that the court or any

individual cannot confer jurisdiction upon any authority who

otherwise is not so empowered under the statute.

2026:JHHC:9484

16. From bare perusal of the order dated 26 June 2018

passed in WPC No. 2431 of 2018 it appears that the Court

had kept all contentions open and thus it cannot be said that

the issue of jurisdiction was not kept open. Further, it was

contended that the Division Bench vide order dated

13.03.2018 passed in WP (PIL) No. 1972 of 2017 never

conferred jurisdiction on the Circle Officer to pass an order

restraining the petitioner from carrying out any construction

activities and that too without any order from a competent

court holding or declaring that the petitioner does not have

title. The Division Bench had directed to take action to

remove encroachment in accordance with law, no such

proceeding under the Land Encroachment Act was initiated

and the impugned proceedings initiated prior to the passing

of the order dated 13.03.2018 passed in WP (PIL) No. 1972 of

2017 was sought to be justified on the touchstone of such

order which cannot be countenanced.

17. The Respondents have not been able to point out any

provision of law in terms of which a Circle Officer can

exercise jurisdiction in respect of enjoyment of a land by its

purported owner on the ground that the said land is a

government pond. If the Circle Officer is of the view based on

cogent and unimpeachable materials that the petitioner or

their principal - landowners have encroached on the land,

2026:JHHC:9484

then a proceeding in terms of the Jharkhand Public Land

Encroachment Act can be initiated subject to all just

exceptions including the plea of lack of jurisdiction on the

ground that the adjudication involves serious and

complicated question of facts regarding title of the

Government qua the petitioner or their principal -

landowners. In such a case the parties will have to be

relegated to a civil court for recovery of possession upon

declaration of right, title and interest.

18. The reasoning recorded in the preceding paragraph also

answers the second issue which was with respect to the

question whether the subject land is a public pond or not.

This issue cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. There are

claims and counter claims. The admitted position as of date

is that the land is a plain land. However, what would be the

effect of the subject land-Plot No. 66 purportedly been

reflected as a pond in the Survey Settlement is a matter to be

decided in a duly constituted proceedings before an

appropriate forum.

As held by the Supreme Court in Jagmittar Sain Bhagat

(supra) the finding of a court or tribunal becomes irrelevant

and unenforceable/inexecutable once the forum is found to

have no jurisdiction; the finding of the Circle Officer in the

2026:JHHC:9484

impugned order cannot be attached with any legal sanctity

and must be held to be void and unenforceable in law.

CONCLUSION

19. In view of the above, it can safely be held that the

proceedings initiated by the Circle Officer, Mohanpur vide

letter dated 08/09. 02. 2017 directing the petitioner to stop

construction of the land in question which culminated in

passing of the impugned order dated 12 December 2018 are

without jurisdiction and hence liable to be quashed and set

aside and are accordingly set aside.

20. However, the State Government is at liberty to initiate

any proceedings which is permissible in law and the

petitioner will be entitled to take all legally permissible

defences to oppose the initiation / continuance or any order

passed therein and till the time an order is passed against the

petitioner in accordance with law by a competent authority,

the possession and the right of the petitioner shall not be

interfered with.

21. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed.

Pending IAs, if any, are closed.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:02 /04/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R

Uploaded on 06.04.2026