Dismissed¶15

Santoshi Roy @ Santoshi Rai v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Jul 2026WPC/4855/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Government tank (Pokhara) settlement for fisheries; Mauza Radhanagar, Dag No. 638, Pakur, Jharkhand; petitioner Santoshi Roy @ Santoshi Rai claimed entitlement because part of her land (Dag No. 639) lies within the tank and because of a prior settlement; High Court of Jharkheld held tank is Government land and petitioner has no exclusive right of settlement; petition dismissed with liberty to seek settlement from appropriate authority. Neutral citation: 2026:JHHC:20335.

What did the court decide?

The tank in question stands on Government land and belongs to the Government; the petitioner has no exclusive right of settlement of the said tank for fisheries, and therefore the writ petition has no merit. ¶14

Santoshi Roy @ Santoshi Rai Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:JHHC:20335

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 4855 of 2026

¶3

Santoshi Roy @ Santoshi Rai, aged about 42 Years, Wife of Lakhan Roy, daughter of Late Kanhai Roy, Resident of Village Radhanagar, PO. & PSPakuriya, District- Pakur. .... Petitioner(s).

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand.

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner Pakur, PO & PS. Pakur, District-Pakur.

¶7

The Block Development Officer Pakur, PO & PS - Pakur. District -Pakur. 4. District Fisheries Officer, Pakuria, P.O. & P.S. Pakuria, District Pakur.

¶8

The Area Fisheries Officer Pakuriya, P.O. & P.S. Pakuria, District Pakur.

¶9

… Respondents.

¶10

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Pandey, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Nawal Kishore Pandey, AC to SC (L&C)-I

¶11

------

¶12

02/ 09.07.2026 : By filing this writ application, the petitioner prays for a direction upon the respondents to settle the tank (Pokhara) of Mauza Radhanagar, Dag No.638 Pakur in the name of the petitioner for fisheries on the ground that the land of the petitioner of jamabandi No.-8 Dag No.639, Area-5 decimal 18 Dhur is a part of the tank and also on the ground that earlier the same was settled in favour of the petitioner.

¶13

It is the grievance of the petitioner that the tank was earlier settled in favour of the petitioner which now is not being settled. It is her case that some portion of the land falls within the tank belongs to the petitioner, thus she is entitled for settlement.

¶14

Admittedly, the tank in question is on the Government land and it belongs to the Government. The petitioner has got no exclusive right of settlement of the said tank for fisheries, thus, I find no merit in this writ petition. If the petitioner wants settlement, she should approach the appropriate authority, who will take decision as per law.

¶15

With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is dismissed .

¶16

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶17

9^th July, 2026 Madhav/Uploaded on:13/07/2026

Santoshi Roy @ Santoshi Rai v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santoshi Roy @ Santoshi Rai v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mrs. Jaya Sahu Vs Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director

Anand Prabha Barat Vs State of Jharkhand, through Its Chief Secretary

Devendra Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shesh Mani Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management

Minor Rishuraj Vs Union of India, Ministry of Education, Represented Thro Secretary Govt of Inida