Marshal Minz v. The State of Jharkhand

SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------- ------ For the Petitioner(s) For the Respondent : Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to AAG-III : Ms. Manju Pandey, Advocate ------ 03/ 28.04.2026: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

After hearing the parties, I find that serious disputed question of right, title and possession is involved in this case. The petitioner claims that he is the title holder having documents in his favour but the land mafia is trying to encroach his land.

It is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of the report of the Circle Officer, Deoghar, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has passed erroneous order in favour of the private respondents ignoring the fact that the title and the documents are in favour of the petitioner.

The entire argument revolves around the right, title and interest of the petitioner vis-a-vis the private respondents. These types of disputed question of facts cannot be looked into or decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Several documents are to be exhibited and ultimately the Court has to come to a conclusion as to who is the title holder of the land in question. Thus, it is the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction who has got jurisdiction to enter into the aforesaid realm and decide the issue permanently once and for all. Thus, I direct the petitioner to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance. The petitioner may also seek for interim relief by invoking jurisdiction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 28th April, 2026 Madhav/- Uploaded on:09/05/2026 -2-