Arjun Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2026)

Arjun Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with directions to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court claiming right, title and interest over the property; the Civil Court to decide the claim independently of Revenue Authorities' orders or enquiries; Revenue Authorities thereafter to mutate the name of the decree-holder; parties fearing dispossession during the suit may file an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Appellate Authority's order in the mutation dispute was erroneous because it did not take into consideration that appellant Bishnu Kumar Budhia placed his case on basis of forged and fabricated documents. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Factual aspects - the dispute over right, title, interest and possession between petitioner and Bishnu Kumar Budhia, and whether any party's claim rests on forged and fabricated documents - cannot be looked into in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Key takeaways

Since the question of right, title and interest is involved in this case, the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction is best suited for deciding the issue; the petitioner is directed to approach the Civil Court claiming his right, title and interest over the property in question.ratio¶17
The Civil Court will decide the claim independently, without being prejudiced by any order passed by the Revenue Authorities or enquiry made by them.ratio¶17
Once the Civil Court decides the right, title and interest of the parties, the Revenue Authorities will mutate the name of the person in whose favour the decree is passed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mutation dispute (Jharkhand) - W.P.(C) No. 3512 of 2026, decided 12.05.2026 by Ananda Sen, J. Petitioner claimed the Appellate Authority's order on mutation was erroneous as it ignored that appellant Bishnu Kumar Budhia relied on forged and fabricated documents. The dispute was held to involve factual questions of right, title, interest and possession, and whether claims rest on forged/fabricated documents, which cannot be looked into in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Court of competent jurisdiction was held best suited for the issue; petitioner directed to approach the Civil Court claiming right, title and interest; Civil Court to decide independently without prejudice from Revenue Authorities' orders or enquiries; on the Civil Court deciding, the Revenue Authorities to mutate the name of the decree-holder; parties feeling threatened of dispossession during the suit may file an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Writ petition disposed of.

2026:JHHC:14874

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(C) No. 3512 of 2026

Arjun Prasad Singh, S/o Late Sita Ram Singh, R/o D-1/45 BIT Mesra Campus, P.O. BIT Mesra, PS BIT Mesra, Dist Ranchi

.... Petitioner(s).

Versus

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Secretary Department of Revenue, Project Building, P.O.+PS Dhurwa, Dist Ranchi

3.Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi

4.Deputy Collector Land Reforms Sadar, P.O.+GPO+PS- Kotwali, Ranchi 5.C.O. Kanke, P.O. + P.S. Kanke, Ranchi

… Respondent(s)

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. -----For the Petitioner(s) : Md. M. Khan, Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Ms. Shalini Shahdeo, AC to SC (L&C)-I

02/ 12.05.2026 Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The entire dispute is in respect of mutation of the land in question. The petitioner claims that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is erroneous as it did not take into consideration the fact that on basis of forged and fabricated documents, appellant- Bishnu Kumar Budhia has placed his case.

After hearing the parties, I find that the dispute is in respect of right, title, interest and possession over the land in question. The dispute primarily is between petitioner and one Bishnu Kumar Budhia. The factual aspect needs to be gone into. It is also to be decided as to whether on basis of some forged and fabricated document any of the parties are making any claim or not. These factual aspects cannot be looked into in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Further, since the question of right, title and interest is also involved in this case, it is the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction who

is best suited for deciding the issue. Thus, I direct the petitioner to approach the Civil Court claiming his right, title and interest over the property in question. The Civil Court will decide the claim independently without being prejudiced by any order passed by the Revenue Authorities or enquiry made by them.

Once the Civil Court decides the right, title and interest of the parties, the Revenue Authorities will mutate the name of person in whose favour the decree is passed.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

If the suit is filed and during that period any of the parties feels threatened of being dispossessed, it will be open to them to file an appropriate application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.

12^th May, 2026 R.S./S.K.C. Uploaded on 14/05/2026

(ANANDA SEN, J.)