Back
2026 Supreme(Jhk) 632
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
Md. Shahid Raja, S/o Md. Khalil Ansari - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand, through the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro - Respondent
W.P. (C.) No. 4667 of 2012
Decided On : 07-07-2026
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Property Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Executive Functions - Prohibitory Orders - Law and Order - Scope of judicial review in executive actions concerning maintenance of public order is extremely limited - Courts should not interfere with administrative decisions unless there is clear abuse of power, extraneous considerations, or patent illegality. (Para 16)
(C) Petitioner's Duty - Coming to court with clean hands - If a petitioner suppresses material facts or fails to produce crucial title documents to determine encroachment, the court is justified in refusing to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction. (Paras 14, 15, 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) directing the deployment of police force to restore possession of land to respondent No. 5. The petitioner claimed ownership through a registered sale deed purchased by his father, while respondent No. 5 claimed ownership and possession through a different chain of title and land demarcation conducted by the state authorities.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the matter involved significant disputes regarding property title and actual physical possession which could not be resolved without a civil suit or an agreed map. The petitioner failed to produce the sale deeds despite stating in the petition that they would be produced. The state action was deemed to be an executive measure taken in the interest of maintaining law and order.
Issues: Whether the SDO's order for maintenance of possession was an arbitrary exercise of power requiring intervention under Article 226, and whether the claim of encroachment could be decided in writ jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: High Courts exercise discretionary power under Article 226 and are not obligated to adjudicate complex disputed facts regarding title or encroachment. Where such facts are contested and parties do not approach the court with clean hands by suppressing documents, the appropriate forum for resolution is a civil court.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
For the Petitioner:Mr. Raj Nandan Sahay, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Kirtivardhan, Advocate, Mr. Aditya Aman, Advocate, Mr. Ritesh Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Vineet Prakash, Advocate, Mr. Vijay Bahadur Singh, Advocate
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the dispute and the prayer for quashing administrative order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. parties' contentions regarding arbitrary executive action vs. maintenance of law and order. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's view on non-intervention in disputed property titles and the duty to present clean facts. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. limited scope of judicial review under article 226 for executive functions. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 5. rejection of reliance upon distinguishable precedents and final disposal. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6.
2. Respondent No.5 has already appeared, however, on repeated call nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent No.5. This matter is of the year 2012 and in view of that in absence of respondent No.5 the present petition is being disposed of.
3. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 10.04.2012 passed by respondent No.2, Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas, District - Bokaro.
4. Mr. Raj Nandan Sahay, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s father had purchased 8 decimals of land in plot No.464 from a total area of 58 decimals of the said plot in Khata No.26, Thana No.38, Mauja – Tetulia, Sub-Registry Office – Chas, Pargana – Khaspel, PS – Chas, District – Dhanbad (now district – Bokaro) from Smt. Kumari Ghatwalin w/o Late Bhikhari Singh by a registered sale deed executed on 06.11.1979 at Sub-Registry Office, Chas. He further submits that one Sri Mehar Babu Ansari also purchased 50 decimals of land out of the total area of 58 decimals in the said plot. He then submits that Sri Mehar Babu Ansari has sold 8 decimals of land from 50 decimals of land purchased from Smt. Kumari Ghatwalin by the aforesaid registered sale deed dated 12.07.1979. He next submits that petitioner’s father Md. Kalil Ansari after purchasing the aforesaid 8 decimals of land got the same mutated in the office of Circle Officer – Chas and thereafter name of the father of the petitioner has entered in Register-II. He also submits that the petitioner is paying rent after the said mutation. He next submits that thereafter father of the petitioner has remained in peaceful possession of the said plot. He next submits that the petitioner came to know that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas, District – Bokaro has passed an order on 10.04.2012 on the basis of DR No.137/12 dated 27.01.2012 submitted by In-charge of Sector-12 Investigation Centre, Bokaro for putting respondent No.5 namely Sri Ram Bahadur Singh in possession of 58 decimals of land of Mauja – Tetulia, Khata No.26, Plot No.464. He next submits that by the impugned order dated 10.04.2012 force have been directed to deploy for giving possession in favour of respondent No.5 which is without jurisdiction. He next submits that forcefully the petitioner has been dispossessed and in view of that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. To buttress this argument, Mr. Sahay, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner relied in the case of Deba Jyoti Dutta and Ors. versus State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (1987) SCC OnLine Pat 156.
5. Relying on the above judgment, Mr. Sahay, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once the arbitrary actions are there, the High Court is competent to pass appropriate order sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. Mr. Sahay, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner further relied in the case of Shailendra Kumar Gupta and Another versus State of Jharkhand and Others reported in (2024) SCC OnLine Jhar 168.
7. Relying on the above judgment, Mr. Sahay, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that if the action is arbitrary of the State and in absence of any valid proceeding pos
