Disposed¶39

Kuldeep Kumar Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 May 2026WPC/3213/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court writ petition disposed of at notice stage; proceedings under Section 164 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 initiated by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khunti in Case No.M-263/2025; notice dated 25.10.2025 (Annexure-3) not quashed; writ petition filed before adjudication deemed premature; Partition Suit No.100/1966 partition in favour of Harakhman Mahto; land at Village Khunti Tola, Thana No.80, Khata Nos.70 and 71; petitioners directed to present documents including civil court judgment to the SDM; adjudication expected within three months after hearing all parties; Ananda Sen, J.; decided 04.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is not entertained because merely a notice has been issued in the underlying proceedings. ¶33

Kuldeep Kumar Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the notice dated 25.10.2025 (Annexure-3) issued in Case No.M-263/2025 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khunti under Section 164 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 should be entertained, notwithstanding that the land was partitioned in Partition Suit No.100/1966. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

The writ petition is not entertained because merely a notice has been issued in the underlying proceedings.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners are directed to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khunti and place all documents including the judgment passed in the suit; the SDM will consider them and pass an appropriate order at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months, after hearing all the parties concerned.

¶37

Key takeaways

It is expected that if any judgment has been passed by the appropriate Civil Court in relation to the land in question, the same will be considered by the authorities.obiter¶38
No interim order restraining action on the notice was granted; the writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No.3213 of 2026 (High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Ananda Sen, J.; decided 04.05.2026): Petitioners Kuldeep Kumar Mahto, Nand Kishore Mahto and Gulab Mahto sought quashing of the notice dated 25.10.2025 (Annexure-3) issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khunti in Case No.M-263/2025, whereby proceedings were initiated under Section 164 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, over land at Village Khunti Tola, P.S. Khunti (Thana No.80), Khata No.71 (Plot Nos.442, 443, 444, 448, 449) and Khata No.70 (Plot Nos.445, 446, 447, 688, 689) admeasuring 1.74 Acres, claiming it stood partitioned in favour of their great grandfather Harakhman Mahto in Partition Suit No.100/1966; they further sought restraint on the authorities acting on the notice pending adjudication. Holding that merely a notice had been issued, the Judge declined to entertain the writ petition, directed the petitioners to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khunti and place all documents including the judgment passed in the suit, expressed the expectation that any Civil Court judgment relating to the land would be considered by the authorities, and directed that an appropriate order be passed at the earliest, preferably within three months, after hearing all parties. Writ petition disposed of; no interim stay granted.

¶1

2026:JHHC:13242

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.3213 of 2026

¶3

------

¶4

Kuldeep Kumar Mahto.

¶5

Nand Kishore Mahto,

¶6

Both son of Lakshmi Nath Mahto

¶7

Gulab Mahto, son of Sukra Mahto.

¶8

All resident of Khunti Toli, Torpa Road, P.O. + P.S. Khunti, District Khunti, Jharkhand.

¶9

… … Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

State of Jharkhand.

¶12

Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khunti, P.O. + P.S. Khunti, District Khunti.

¶13

Lakhan Mahto

¶14

Raju Mahto

¶15

Mahesh Mahto.

¶16

Respondent Nos.3 to 5, son of Late Raghunath Mahto.

¶17

Sankranti Devi, W/o Late Ganesh Mahto.

¶18

Respondent Nos.3 to 6, resident of Khunti Toli, Torpa Road, P.O. + P.S. Khunti, District Khunti, Jharkhand.

¶19

… … Respondents

¶20

------

¶21

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶22

------

¶23

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Moushmi Chatterjee, AC to GA-V

¶24

------

¶25

02/ 04.05.2026

¶26

By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶27

“I. For the Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, including a writ in the nature of certiorari, for calling upon the records of the proceedings of Case No.M-263/2025, and for quashing and setting aside the notice dated 25.10.2025 (Annexure-3) along with entire proceeding initiated by the SubDivisional Magistrate, Khunti, whereby proceedings under Section 164 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

¶28

¶29

2026:JHHC:13242

¶30

2023 has been initiated and continued, despite the undisputed fact that the land situated at Village Khunti Tola, P.S. Khunti (Thana No.80), Khata No.71 (Plot Nos.442, 443, 444, 448, 449) and Khata No.70 (Plot Nos.445, 446, 447, 688, 689) admeasuring 1.74 Acres stands partitioned in favour of Harakhman Mahto (great grandfather of the petitioners) in Partition Suit No.100/1966.

¶31

II. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent authorities not to give effect to, or act upon, the impugned notice dated 25.10.2025 (Annexure-3) passed in Case No.M-263/2025 until the final adjudication of the present writ petition.

¶32

III. Issue appropriate writ granting an interim order/stay staying the operation, implementation and execution of the notice dated 25.10.2025 (Annexure-3) passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khunti in Case No.M-263/2025, during the pendency of this writ petition.”

¶33

2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioners and learned counsel representing the respondents.

¶34

3. From the aforesaid prayer of the petitioners in this writ petition, since I find that merely a notice has been issued, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 4. The petitioners should appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khunti, and place all the documents including the

¶35

¶36

2026:JHHC:13242

¶37

judgment passed in the suit, which will be considered and an appropriate order will be passed at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months, after hearing all the parties concerned.

¶38

5. It is expected that if any judgment has been passed by the appropriate Civil Court in relation to the land in question, the same will be considered by the Authorities.

¶39

6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of .

¶40

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶41

04^th May, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2

¶42

Uploaded on 12.05.2026

¶43

Kuldeep Kumar Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Kumar Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Viriya Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla

Chhotu Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sitakant Jha Vs State of Jharkhand

Bigu Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar Diwedi Vs the State of Jharkhand Ranchi.

Panwasiya Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand