##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.3852 of 2014

1. Ananta Gour @ Anant Kumar Pradhan, son of late Gajendra Gour, 2. Ishan Gour @ Ishan Kumar Pradhan, son of late Gajendra Gaur Both residents of village Gour Danga, P.O. Bhillai Pahari, P.S. MGM, District-

East Singhbhum …………….Petitioners -Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division Chaibasha, P.O and P.S.

Chaibasha, District:West Singhbhum

3. The Deputy Commissioner East Singhbhum, Jasmshedpur, Collectorate office, P.O and P.S.Jamshedpur, District: East Singhbum.

4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dalbhum, Jamshedpur, P.O and P.S.Jamshedpur, District: East Singhbum.

5. Mamta Singh Munda wife of late Jyotish Singh Munda, resident of village Gour Danga P.P Bhilai Pahari, P.S. MGM, District: East Singhbhum .…. … Respondents --------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Ganesh Ram, Advocate :

For the State :Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate : Mrs. Shalini Sahdeo, Advocate For the Resp. No.5 : Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate : Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate

10/ 01.09.2026: Heard Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel for the State and Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.

2. Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that I.A. No. 11040 of 2023 has been filed for substituting the name of legal heirs and successor of petitioner no.1 and the name of legal heirs and successors have been disclosed in para 4 of the said I.A. He submits that Ishan Gour @ Ishan Kumar Pradhan son of late Gajendra Gour is required to be substituted in place of petitioner no.1 however inadvertently he has substituted the name of petitioner no.2 in place of petitioner no.1. He submits that the name of Ishan Gour @ Ishan Kumar Pradhan is required to be inserted and in view of that he seeks permission to correct the same.

3. Permission is accorded.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners shall correct the same in course of day.

5. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 29.6.2006 passed by respondent no.4 -the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dalbhum, Jamshedpur, in Land Restoration case no. 78/2002-2003 whereby the petition filed under section 71 (A) of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act for restoration of possession in favour of respondent no. 5 has been allowed. Prayer is also made for quashing the order dated 29.10.2012 passed by the respondent no. 3-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in S.A.R. appeal no.142/2010- 2011 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed and further prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 22.4.2014 passed by respondent no.2 in S.A.R. Revision case no.4/2012-2013 whereby the revision filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. Prayer is also made to restore the land in favour of the petitioners.

6. Mr. Prabahash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are in possession of the lands in question recorded under khata no. 151, bearing under plot no.191 area 0.01 acres area and 0.51 acres situated in Mauza Deoghar Revenue thana no.1147 under plot no.192 police station M.G.M. in the District East Singhbhum. He further submits that the lands in question though recorded in the name of Muchi Ram Munda the deceased father in law of respondent no.5 but the petitioners are in all acts of actual peaceful physical possession on the lands in question since

1967. He next submits that the Title suit no. 791/1967 was instituted which was ended in compromise and accordingly the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur mutated the name of the petitioner no.1 and accepted the rent from him in respect of the land in question contained in Annexure-1. He next submits that since the petitioners are in possession of the land since 1967, nobody claimed for the same and after