Biswajit Nath Shahdeo v. The State of Jharkhand, through Chief Secretary, Ranchi
Case at a glance
- Bench
- RAJESH SHANKAR
- Neutral citation
- 2026:JHHC:7080-DB
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner: For the Res.-RMC: ----- Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Karbir, Advocate ----- 02/16.03.2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner seeks the following substantive reliefs in this writ petition:
(i) For quashing the Notice Inviting Tender issued vide Letter No. 200/Eng. Dated 22.01.2026 (Annexure-6) by the respondent no. 7, i.e., the Executive Engineer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, whereby tender has been issued for construction of a boundary wall over the so-called vacant land of Ranchi Municipal Corporation near Doranda Community Hall under Ward No. 45, as the land under question does not belong to Ranchi Municipal Corporation but is part of Barkagarh Estate, over which the respondents have no right, title or authority. (ii) For direction upon the respondent authorities not to proceed with or carry out any construction activity pursuant to the aforesaid tender notice over the land in question during the pendency of instant writ petition.
Though the relief is sought in form of a challenge to the tender notice, the petitioner’s case is that the tender has been issued for 1 constructing a boundary wall over the property, which the petitioner’s claims to be a part of Barkagarh Estate.
From the averments made in the writ petition and also the prayer clauses, it is evident that the dispute raised by the petitioner is a purely civil dispute relating to ownership and possession of the land in question. Such a dispute cannot be adjudicated by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
On the above ground, we decline to entertain this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
However, this dismissal will not preclude the petitioner from filing appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum for protection of his alleged civil rights in respect of the property in question.
All contentions of the parties in this regard are kept explicitly open.
16.03.2026 Satish/Vikas/ 2
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.