[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Mustakim Ansari vs State Of Jharkhand on 29 January, 2026
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2026:JHHC:2533
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 3854 of 2022
---------
1. Mustakim Ansari, aged about 48 years, S/o-Budhan Miyan.
2. Tahir Ansari, aged about 48 years, S/o-Late Sukar Miyan.
Both are residents of Bijaypur, P.O. & P.S.-Saria, District-Giridih.
....Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Commissioner North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, P.O.,
P.S. and District-Hazaribagh.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Giridih.
4. SDO Bagodar, Saria, P.O. & P.S.-Sariya, Giridih.
5. Circle Officer, Saria, P.O. & P.S.-Saria, Giridih.
6. Officer in charge Saria, P.O. & P.S.-Sariya, Giridih.
7. Mahesh Prasad Verma, Father-Jagdish Prasad Kushwaha, R/o-
Dakbangla Road, P.O. & P.S.-Saria, Dist.-Giridih.
8. Bhuvneshwer Yadav, S/o-Late Bandhan Mahto.
9. Arjun Yadav, S/o-Late Bandhan Mahto.
10. Smt. Parvati Devi, W/o-Lakshman Ravidas.
11. Narayan Ravidas, S/o-Late Lakshman Ravidas.
All are residents of Nawadih, P.O. & P.S.-Gagodar, Saria, Dist.-
Giridih. ....Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalyan Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. Sunita Kumari, A.C. to Sr.S.C.-II
Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Md. Abdul Wahab, Advocate
Mr. Shyam Sundar Pd. Kushwaha, Advocate
---------
14/Dated:-29.01.2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Though initially, the writ application was preferred by
the petitioners praying therein for the following relief:
For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs commanding upon
the respondents to verify and ascertain as to whether the
respondents has rightly handed over the suit land in favour of
Respondent no.-7 or the land which possession was given belongs to
the petitioners. And further if it is found that the possession was
given of the land which is not the suit land in that case the
respondents be directed to hand over the land in question in favour of
the petitioners. And further restrain the respondents from erecting
boundary wall and any other construction over the land in question.
3. However, after passage of time, learned counsel for the
2026:JHHC:2533
petitioners confined his prayer only to the extent that the
competent authority shall demarcate the land of which they are
the owner.
4. Learned counsel for the private respondents submits
that the petitioners are having confusion and the demarcation has
already been made pursuant to the Compromise Decree dated
03.06.2002 passed in Title Suit No. 127 of 2001.
5. Having regard to the rival contention and also the fair
submission of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the
private respondents, interest of justice would be sufficed by
directing the concerned respondent-Circle Officer to demarcate the
land once again, strictly in accordance with Compromise Decree
dated 03.06.2002 passed in Title Suit No. 127 of 2001 and ensure
that if the petitioners are entitled for certain portion of land, that
should be clearly demarcated in order to prevent further lis
between the parties.
6. The Circle Officer is directed to issue notice to both the
parties to appear on any day which he chooses for making
physical verification for demarcation and do the demarcation in
presence of both the parties, however, entire exercise shall be
completed not beyond a period of two months.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
instant writ application stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any,
also stands closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
JANUARY 29, 2026
vikas/-
uploaded
06.02.2026
