Amant Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Dec 2025WPC/6413/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of writ petition with liberty to pursue alternative remedy; alleged forgery/fraudulent transfer and correction in Registered II of land records; Khata No. 8, Plot No. 16, 2.40 acres out of 4.40 acres, village Khutaband, P.O. Motileda, P.S. Bengabad, District Giridih; land allegedly inherited from ancestor Pran Mian; transfer recorded in favour of respondent Nos. 8 and 9 (Nasim and Roshaniya) at instance of respondent No. 5 (Jahid Ansari); mandamus sought against State of Jharkhand, Deputy Commissioner Giridih, Additional Collector Giridih, Circle Officer Bengabad; petition disposed of as withdrawn, not adjudicated; High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi; Justice Rajesh Kumar; 2025.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the writ petition, with liberty to work out the petitioner's remedy in accordance with law. ¶¶30

Amant Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission to withdraw the writ petition, with liberty to work out the petitioner's remedy in accordance with law.

¶¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ in the nature of mandamus should issue directing the respondents to enquire into the alleged forgery in the transfer of, and correction in Registered II of, land comprising Khata No. 8, Plot No. 16 (area 1.60 acres and 0.80 acres, total 2.40 acres out of 4.40 acres), village Khutaband, P.O. Motileda, P.S. Bengabad, District Giridih, allegedly belonging to the petitioner and inherited from ancestor Pran Mian, said to have been effected in favour of respondent No. 8 (wife of respondent No. 5) and respondent No. 9 at the instance of respondent No. 5, and to cancel the transfer. (Framed from the prayer clause; the petition was withdrawn before any adjudication on this question.)

¶¶26

Ratio / Principle

Learned counsel for the petitioner, having sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to work out his remedy in accordance with law, is permitted to withdraw the present writ petition.

¶¶29

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn, with the liberty granted to the petitioner to work out his remedy in accordance with law.ratio¶¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Civil Writ Jurisdiction), W.P. (C) No.6413 of 2025, decided 01st December, 2025 — Rajesh Kumar, J. The petitioner sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents (including the Deputy Commissioner, Additional Collector and Circle Officer, Giridih/Bengabad) to enquire into an alleged forgery in the transfer of, and correction in Registered II of, 2.40 acres of land (Khata No. 8, Plot No. 16) at village Khutaband, P.S. Bengabad, District Giridih, allegedly belonging to him and inherited from his ancestor Pran Mian, said to have been transferred in favour of respondent Nos. 8 and 9 at the instance of respondent No. 5, and to cancel the transfer. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to work out his remedy in accordance with law; leave was granted and the petition was disposed of as withdrawn. No point was adjudicated on merits; no statute or precedent was cited.

¶1

2025:JHHC:35789

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)

¶4

W.P. (C) No.6413 of 2025

¶5

¶6

Amant Ansari age about 55 years S/o Late Karim Ansari, resident of village Khutaband, P.O.-Motileda, P.S.-Bengabad, District – Giridih.

¶7

…. …. Petitioner(s)

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. The State of Jharkhand.

¶10

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, P.O.+P.S.- Sadar, District – Giridih.

¶11

3. Additional Collector, Giridih, P.O.+P.S.- Sadar, District – Giridih.

¶12

4. Circle Officer, Bengabad, P.O.+P.S.- Bengabad, District-Giridih.

¶13

5. Jahid Ansari, S/o Late Jeevan Mian

¶14

6. Bahuddin Ansari, S/o Imaman Ansari

¶15

7. Sarfu Ansari, S/o Imamam Ansari

¶16

8. Nasim, W/o Jahid Ansari

¶17

9. Roshaniya, W/o Basir Ansari

¶18

Respondent Nos.5 to 9 residents of village Khutaband, P.O.-Motileda, P.S.-Bengabad, District – Giridih.

¶19

…. …. Respondent(s)

¶20

¶21

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶22

---For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avishek Chandra, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.C. to G.A.-V

¶23

¶24

02/Dated: 01^st December, 2025

¶25

1. The present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:-

¶26

“for issuance of an appropriate writ/s, order/s, direction/s or a particular writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to make an enquiry for forgery transfer of land pertaining to Khata No 8, Plot No. 16, area 1.60 acres and 0.80 acres (total 2.40 acres) out of 4.40 acres of village Khutaband, P.O. Motileda, P.S. Bengabad, District Giridih belonging to petitioner dully inherited from the ancestor namely Pran Mian as on the instance of respondent No. 5 the illegality and forgery in transferring and correcting in Registered II the land has been done in his wife respondent No. 8 name and in sister in laws name respondent No. 9 and consequently cancelled the transfer of land as aforesaid.”

¶27

2025:JHHC:35789

¶28

2. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition with a liberty to work out his remedy in accordance with law.

¶29

3. In view of above submission, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the present writ petition.

¶30

4. Accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby disposed of as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty.

¶31

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶32

Dated: 01^st December, 2025 Amar/Uploaded on 02.12.2025

¶33

Page | 2

¶34

W.P. (C) No.6413 of 2025

Amant Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amant Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhram Hassa Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jitendra Pradhan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sufi Sheikh Alias Mohammad Sufi Sheikh Alias M.D.Sufi S.K., Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anil Raut Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Dept. of Revenue and Land Reforms

M/S Shankar Mahto, through Its Proprietor Sh. Shankar Mahto Vs Union of India

Dinanath Bhagat Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department