[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Purnachandra Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 April, 2026
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2026:JHHC:10265
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1057 of 2025
-----
Purnachandra Mahto, S/o Late Lohra Mahto, R/o Village Danadih, PO Danadih,
P.S. Sonahatu, District Ranchi
.... Petitioner(s).
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Deputy Commissioner, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Ranchi, District Ranchi
3.Additional Collector, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Ranchi, District Ranchi
4.Land Revenue Deputy Collector, Ranchi
5.Circle Officer, Sonahatu, Bundu, Ranchi
6.Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi
... Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendra Kr. Mhato, Advocate
Mrs. Ahalya Mahato, Advocate
Ms. Jyotsna Mahato, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav, Sr. S.C.-I
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
.........
09/ 09.04.2026: I.A. No.4961 of 2026
This interlocutory application has been filed by proposed
interveners claiming to be added as respondents in this writ petition.
2. It is the case of the proposed interveners that they are running
the shop over the land in question for few decades and they cannot be
evicted nor they can be disturbed in the garb of this proceeding.
3. In this writ petition, the petitioner's grievance is that though the
land belongs to the petitioner and is recorded in the name of his
forefathers on the khatiyan, rent receipt has not been issued. The
proposed interveners submits that in this writ petition, the petitioner's
prayed to accept the rent (malguzari) over land measuring 01 Acre 4
Decimal land in Mouza Gomiadih Thana No.59, Khata No.109, Plot
No.26, Sonahatu Ranchi. Further, he prayed for a direction upon the
respondents to vacate and remove the construction of toilet, which has
been constructed by the respondents.
4. Admittedly, the proposed interveners are not claiming title over
the land in question, whereas the petitioner is claiming that the land
2026:JHHC:10265
belongs to him. Since, the proposed interveners are not claiming title
over the land in question and claimed to be in possession over the land
in question, I find that they are not a necessary party to this writ
petition. Further, even if the application of the petitioner is allowed,
the order will not affect the proposed intervener as even if ultimately
at any stage in any proceeding the title of the petitioner is declared and
if it is found that the proposed intervener is in possession of the land
in question, they can only be evicted by following the due procedure
of law.
5. Accordingly, the intervention application is dismissed as they
are not a newly party.
6. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for
the following reliefs:-
"(a)For a direction upon the Respondent No.2 to immediately accept upto date
rent (Malguzari) from the petitioner and grant rent receipt with respect land
measuring 01 Acre 4 Decimal land in Mouza Gomiadih Thana No 59, Khata
No 109, Plot No 26, Sonahatu Ranchi.
(b) For a further direction on the concerned Respondents to vacate and remove
construction of toilet already done on the Raiyati Land of the Petitioner and
to further direct the concerned Respondents to demarcate the land of the
Petitioner.
(c) For any other appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) as may be deemed
fit and proper by your Lordships for imparting substantial and conscionable
justice to the petitioner."
7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the land measuring 01 Acre
4 Decimal land in Mouza Gomiadih Thana No.59, Khata No.109, Plot
No.26, Sonahatu Ranchi belongs to the petitioner as the same has been
recorded in the khatiyan in the name of the forefathers of this petitioner.
8. After going through the records and especially the khatiyan
which has been annexed by the State, I find that the khatiyan is in the
name of Kunja Mahto and others. It is the claim of the petitioner that
Kunja Mahto is his grandfather. Further, in another document of the
State i.e. Annexure-B, which is the tenants ledger, the name of the
raiyat i.e. the son of Kunja Mahto is mentioned, but there are some
2026:JHHC:10265
interpolations mentioning Tahsil, Katchury etc. in the same. Both the
documents, which the State is relying upon, prima facie reflect that the
petitioner has some interest in the law.
9. Learned counsel for the State submits that over the land in
question, some construction has been made by the Government and
there are some shops and houses.
10. This Court fails to understand, if in the tenant ledger and in the
khatiyan the name of the ancestor of this petitioner is mentioned then
how such construction has been made by the State.
11. The fact remains there are some constructions. This Court cannot
enter into the question of facts as to who had constructed the same and
under what authority, the same was constructed. It is also to be seen
as to what is the nature of the land and to what extent the petitioner is
claiming title based on which documents. Though prima facie, there are
some records, which are in support of the petitioner, but in this case,
in my opinion, since there are some constructions over the land in
question and there is genuine cloud over the title of the petitioner, the
petitioner should approach the Civil Court praying for a declaration
of his right, title and interest over the land and also for recovery of
possession, if he is found to be dispossessed.
The aforesaid relief can only be granted by the Civil Court. Thus,
I direct the petitioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court claiming
his right, title and interest over the land and for recovery of the
possession.
12. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition is
disposed of.
13. Personal appearance of the Officer concerned is dispensed with.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
th
09 April, 2026
R.S./
Uploaded 10/04/2026
