Disposed¶28

Srikant Pandey v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi – W.P.(C) No.5023 of 2026

Jharkhand HC18 Jul 2026WPC/5023/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition disposed of; status quo order violation; petitioner directed to approach Circle Officer or Deputy Commissioner; action as per BNSS; obstruction of egress and ingress passage to main road; Hukumnama settlement; khata no.165, mauza Nawadih; plot no.20 and 30; Circle Officer Domchanch; Domchanch Police Station; Koderma district; mandamus sought; no substantive relief.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted; writ petition disposed of with the observation that the petitioner may approach the Circle Officer or the Deputy Commissioner, or take appropriate action as per the BNSS, if the status quo order is violated. ¶28

Srikant Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:JHHC:21243

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No.5023 of 2026

¶4

Srikant Pandey, aged about-66 years Son of Late Bindeshwari Pandey, Resident of Village-Domchanch ward no.4 Nawadih, P.O. & P.S. Domchanch, District-Koderma. …. Petitioner(s)

¶5

…. Petitioner(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand.

¶8

The Secretary, Revenue Registration Land Reforms Department Government of Jharkhand office situated at Project Building Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Dhurwa.

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner Koderma, P.O. & P.S. Koderma, DistrictKoderma.

¶10

The Superintendent of Police Koderma, P.O. & P.S. Koderma, District-Koderma.

¶11

The Sub-Divisional Officer Koderma, P.O. & P.S. Koderma, DistrictKoderma.

¶12

The Officer-in-charge Domchanch Police Station P.O. & P.S. Domchanch, District-Koderma. … Respondent(s)

¶13

… Respondent(s)

¶14

¶15

CORAM: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶16

¶17

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Mishra, GP-V

¶18

¶19

2/18.07.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned

¶20

counsel appearing for the Respondents.

¶21

By way of the instant writ petition, petitioners pray for:-

¶22

“issuance of an appropriate Writ(s), Direction(s), Order(s) in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take necessary action against the private respondents who are obstructing the only passage to the main road of the petitioners house in spite of order dated 11.07.2025 by Circle Officer, Domchanch to maintain status quo over plot no.20 and 30 of khata no.165 of mauza Nawadih and further directed the Officer-in-charge Domchanch to maintain the status quo, but respondents are not taking any action in spite of several representation by the petitioner in this regard, though the

¶23

2026:JHHC:21243

¶24

above plots of khata no.165 of mauza Nawadih has been settled in favour of ancestor of the petitioner by Hukumnama and thereupon petitioners are also paying rent for the plot in question.”

¶25

The petitioner is claiming that the land, which the petitioner has used for egress and ingress has been obstructed by the private respondents.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioners also draws the attention of the Court to the direction, which is in the order passed by the Circle Officer, Kodarma, wherein he has directed both the parties to maintain status quo over the land in question.

¶27

Since the order has already been passed to maintain the status quo, the petitioner should approach the appropriate authority, i.e. the Circle Officer or the Deputy Commissioner, if the status quo order is violated or the petitioner may take appropriate action as per the BNSS for violation of the order of status quo.

¶28

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

¶29

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶30

18.07.2026

¶31

R.Kumar Uploaded on 22.07.2026

Srikant Pandey v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srikant Pandey 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suraj Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Smt. Usha Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Icici Bank Ltd. Represented Thro Its Authorized Representative Sri Praveen Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand Thro the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa

Mina Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Babita Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department

M/S Anirox Pigments Limited through Its Director Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees, Provident Fund Organisation