IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5887 of 2002 Deopal Singh son of late Ledwa Singh Resident of village-Porra, P.S.

Karra, District-Ranchi … … Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi

3. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi

4. Special Officer, Schedule Area, Regulation, Khunti

5. Circle Officer, Karra (Khunti)

6. Sahdeo Chick Baraik, S/o late Gandura Baraik Resident of village Porda, P.S. Karra, District Ranchi (DFD as against respondent no. 6 v.o.d. 28.03.2023) Restored v.o.d. 19.02.2024 passed in W.P. (C) No. 5984 of 2001 and substituted v.o.d. 22.08.2025)

6(i) Balo Devi W/o Late Sahdeo Chick Baraik

6(ii) Rajesh @ Guruwa Baraik S/o late Sahdeo Chik Baraik

6(iii) Bharat @ Bhartu Baraik s/o Sahdeo Chik Baraik All are the resident of village-Porda, P.S. Karra, Dist. Khunti … … Respondents ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

For the Petitioners : Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate : Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Srikant Swroop, AC to AAG-II ---

30/22.01.2026 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

“ For issuance of direction upon the respondents for quashing the order dated 03.11.1995 in S.A.R. Case No. 5/95-96 and order dated 21.08.2001/3.11.01 in S.A.R. Revision Case No. 80/97 passed by Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation Act and Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi respectively Respondent nos. 2 & 4 of the writ petition whereby the learned Commissioner set aside the order dated 29.11.1996/30.05.97 as passed in S.A.R. Appeal No. 7R15 f 96-97/T.R. No. 88R 15/96-97 by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi which arises out of the order passed in S.A.R. Case No. 5/95-96 by the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Khunti of the writ petition whereby the learned appellate court had set aside the order of Restoration passed by the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Khunti in favour of Respondent no. 6. AND Further direction be issued to the Respondent no.

5 referring to forcibly dispossessed the petitioner from the land in question bearing Khata No. 69 plot no. 784 area 1.36 acres.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this court in W.P. (C) No. 5984 of 2001 dated 02.07.2025 wherein the writ petition filed by Anand Kumar Baraik and Others against the same respondents, as are involved in the present case, has been dismissed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present case is relating to Khata No. 69, R.S. Plot no. 784, area 1.36 acres in village Porda, P.S. Karra. He submits that the order impugned in the present case has been passed by learned Commissioner and has referred to page 31 of the writ petition. He submits that the learned Commissioner while dismissing the revision has simply stated “V.O.S. 79/97”. Meaning thereby the case is covered by the judgment passed in Revision Case No. 79 of 1997.

5. The learned counsel submits that though the applicant seeking the restoration of the land was same in Revision Case No. 79 of 1997 and also in the present case being Revision Case No. 80 of 1997 but the description of the property was totally different and the parties were not the same. He has submitted that the Revision Case No. 79 of 1997 was relating to Khata No. 11 and the present case is relating to Khata No. 69. He has also submitted that in the present case , the petitioner is in possession of the property by virtue of chain of sale deeds executed by Babu Nandlal Singh. He has submitted that in the present case the ex-landlord had settled the property involved in this case to one Babu Nandlal Singh son of Mahabir Singh by hukumnama dated 15.04.1944 and thereafter there has been repeated sale deeds. The learned counsel has submitted that the Hukumnama involved in the present case and the hukumnama