Daljeet Singh @ Sardar Daljeet Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 15 January, 2026

Author: Rajesh Kumar

Bench: Rajesh Kumar

                                                                      2026:JHHC:1030

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 W.P.(C) No.6996 of 2025
                          ----

Daljeet Singh @ Sardar Daljeet Singh, aged about 55 years, son of Late Sardar Harjeet Singh, resident of 4A, Circuit House Area, North-West, Near Sai Mandir, P.O. and P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, PIN 831001 .... .... Petitioner

-Versus-

1. State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, having its office at Jharkhand Mantralaya (Project Building), P.O. Jagannathpur, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi (Jharkhand), PIN 834004

2. Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, having its office at District Collectorate Building, P.O. and P.S. Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, PIN 831001

3. Karn Satyarthi, father's name not known to petitioner presently, posted as Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, having its office at District Collectorate Building, P.O. and P.S. Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, PIN 831001 .... .... Respondents

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate : Mrs. Shilpi Gadodia, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A-III

----

th 03/Dated: 15 January, 2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Pursuant to the order dated 04.12.2025, a counter affidavit has been

presented by the respondent-State and a copy of the same has already been

served upon the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The same is

accepted and keep it on record.

3. The present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:-

"(i). For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including Writ of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside the order dated 23.09.2025 passed in Misc Case No.57/2025-26 by the Respondent No.2 (Annexure-

14) in respect of a plot of land ad-measuring an area of 5.26 acres, situated at village Khuntadih, Thana No.1155, appertaining to old Khata No.40, Old Plot Nos. 1566, 1567, 1568, 1569, 1570 and 1572 (new Khata No.622 and new Plot No.6048), Jamshedpur in the District of East 2026:JHHC:1030

Singhbhum, wherein representation/application of petitioner for correction of online Jamabandi in Register II and issuance of revenue rent receipt have been rejected in a most illegal and arbitrary manner that too, by reopening the issues which has already been decided by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No. 1981 of 2003 and W.P.(C) No. 6816 of 2005 subsequently affirmed in LPA No. 227 of 2012 and LPA No. 236 of 2012.

(ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Declaration, declaring that action of Respondent Nos.2 is wholly without jurisdiction and non-est in the eye of law especially because the issue before the said Respondent was limited only to the extent of correction of online Jamabandi Register II and issuance of Revenue rent receipt in favour of Petitioner despite thereof, Respondent No.2 has decided the issue with respect to raiyati status of land in question which has already been decided by this Hon'ble Court resulting into utter disobedience and disregard to the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No.1981 of 2003 and W.P. (C) No.6816 of 2005 subsequently affirmed in LPA No. 227 of 2012 and LPA No. 236 of 2012.

(iii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Mandamus, directing Respondents including Respondents No.2 not to interfere in any manner whatsoever with the peaceful possession of petitioner and not to harass and create hindrance in enjoyment of property of petitioner in view of the series of authoritative judgment of this Hon'ble Court which attained finality in favour of petitioner itself."

4. The order dated 04th December, 2025 reads as under:-

1. Prima facie it appears to be a case of contempt of Court because the concerned Deputy Commissioner has tried to review or overcome the clear cut adjudication made by the Constitutional Court. There are various litigations between the parties. The details of the same are as follows:-

(i) W.P.(C) No.1981 of 2003 with W.P.(C) No.6816 of 2005

(ii) L.P.A No.227 of 2012 with L.P.A No.236 of 2012

(iii) Civil Review No.91 of 2023

2. All the cases have been culminated in favour of the petitioner. In spite of that, impugned order has been passed. Paragraph No.39 of the same is quoted hereinbelow:-

"39. After a thorough examination of the above stated facts and documents, the following are clear: First, that the land in question belongs to a restricted category of land (Anabad Bihar Sarkar).

Second, that the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer U/S 90 of the CNT Act is time barred ultra vires and void ab initio.

Third, that the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum dated 25.05.2012 has been passed without any authority and is wholly illegal. It is highly probable the ADC, East Singhbhum has passed the order with malafide intent of causing loss to the state exchequer.

Fourth, that the fact of possession is essential for realising rent and making corrections in the revenue records and documentary records state that possession of the land is with the Indian Army.

2026:JHHC:1030

Fifth, that the undersigned possess no authority to supersede the decision of the state government to execute the deed of indenture between the Government of Jharkhand and Tata Steel Limited and realise rents fixed therefrom. In accordance with the principle that 'Jus ex injuria non oritur' (a right cannot arise from a wrong), the request of the petitioner for correction of Online Jamabandi Register II and issuance of revenue rent receipts is liable to be rejected."

3. This order is directly in the teeth of orders made in above quoted cases passed by the Constitutional Court.

4. Issue notice to the respondent No.3 why not contempt proceeding should be initiated against him, both under speed post as well as ordinary process, for which requisites etc. must be filed within two weeks, failing which the present petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to a Bench.

5. In the meantime, State is also directed to file response.

6. Put up this case on 15.01.2026."

5. In response of the same, a show cause has been filed by the respondent

No.3 i.e., Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum. Paragraph Nos.34 to 37 are

relevant which are quoted herein below:-

"34. That it is humbly stated and submitted the answering Respondent couldn't peruse the judgments passed in W.P. (C) No.- 1981 of 2003 with W.P. (C) No. 6816 of 2005 and L.P.A No. 227 of 2012 with L.P.A No.-236 of 2012 and therefore passed the impugned order inadvertently and unintentionally for which the answering Respondent seeks unconditional apology.

35. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the answering Respondent also couldn't go through the judgment passed in Civil Review No. 91 of 2023 and W.P. (C) No. 4311 of 2017 and passed the impugned order inadvertently and unintentionally for which the answering Respondent seeks unconditional apology.

36. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the apology of the answering Respondent may kindly be considered as the conduct of the answering Respondent was not willful rather based on the premise that the State may loose substantially in terms of revenue due to invalid documents available in records.

37. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the answering respondent is having no power to review its own order or else the answering respondents would have withdrawn the impugned order and could have passed fresh reasoned order."

6. The issue has already been settled. A review petition being Review Case

No.74 of 2023 was preferred by the Union of India against the order passed in

L.P.A No.227 of 2012 and L.P.A No.236 of 2012 which has been dismissed,

vide order dated 03.11.2025.

2026:JHHC:1030

7. It is also settled principle of law that the online entry and the original

record have to be copy of each other. There cannot be any discrepancy in the

online entry beyond the official records. The official records are sacrosanct and

online entry is mere copy of the original record.

8. Since, it is an admitted position that the original entries is in favour of

the petitioner and the raiyati status of the land has been declared and settled by

the different Courts up to the Hon'ble Apex Court and as such, the present writ

petitioner is hereby, disposed of giving caution to the Deputy Commissioner-

cum-District Magistrate, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, to be vigilant in future.

Further, concerned Circle Officer is directed to issue rent receipts in favour of

the petitioner as soon as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from

the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.09.2025 contained in

Annexure-14 passed by the respondent No.2 i.e., the Deputy Commissioner-

cum-Deputy Magistrate, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Misc. Case

No.57/2025-26 is hereby, quashed and set-aside.

10. With the above observation and direction, the present writ petition stands

disposed of.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) 15th January, 2026 Raja/-Uploaded on 19.01.2026