Disposed

Lolas Lakra v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Sept 2026WPC/5057/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing revenue officials to rectify alleged double zamabandi and cancel entries in favour of the respondent. The High Court found that the rival claims pertain to different plots and khata numbers as per the record-of-rights, and that the dispute involves questions of title and possession which cannot be resolved in a writ proceeding. The court disposed of the petition and directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate civil court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioner directed to approach the appropriate civil court for adjudication of title and possession.

Lolas Lakra Vs the State of Jharkhand — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:27730

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5057 of 2021

¶3

Lolas Lakra, Son of Late Mangal Das, Resident of Jawahar Nagar, Near State Bank of India, Post -Office, Azad Nagar, Police StationMango, Jamshedpur, Dist-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.

¶4

… … Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand.

¶7

The Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and land reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand office at project Building, Post Office and Police Station-Dhurwa, Dist-Ranchi.

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Post Office and Police Station-Jamshedpur, East-Singhbhum.

¶9

The Additional Collector, East Singhbhum, Post Office and Police Station-Jamshedpur, East-Singhbhum.

¶10

Circle Officer, Mango, Jamshedpur, Post Office-Mango, Police Station-Azad Nagar, Jamshedpur, Dist-East-Singhbhum.

¶11

Prabhu Das Minz, Son of Late Masih Charan Minz, Sitaram Dera, Christian Colony, Jamshedpur, Post Office-Mango, Police Station-Azad Nagar, Jamshedpur, Dist-EastSinghbhum. … … Respondent(s)

¶12

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶13

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arshad Hussain, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Vineet Prakash, AC to SC-IV

¶14

------

¶15

07/ 15^th September, 2026

¶16

1. Heard the parties.

¶17

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the

¶18

following reliefs:-

¶19

“1. For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents especially respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5 to look into the matter of double Zamabandi of land appertaining to Khata No.533, Plot No.3176 of Ward No.9 Sheet No.11 of Mango Jamshedpur part of which has, wrongly, been rescheduled in the name of Masih Charan Minz, the Late Father of respondent No.6 during the last survey of 1979-80 showing it has Khata No.404 Plot No.3177 on which the respondent No.6 is claiming his right, title and interest without having any valid document.”

¶20

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.6 has entered into the land of the petitioner and is claiming possession and title over the same, though the land belongs to the petitioner.

¶21

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in Khata

¶22

Page | 1

¶23

2026:JHHC:27730

¶24

No.533, Plot No.3176 of Ward No.9 Sheet No.11 Mauza-Mango at Jamshedpur belongs to the petitioner. He refers Annexure-4 which is a copy of the Register-II. He submits that the land of the of respondent No.6 is Khata No.404, Plot No.3177/ka and 3177/Kha of Ward No.9.

¶25

5. After hearing the parties, I find that Annexure-2 which is the copy of the Register-II and the entries made therein is different than what the petitioner is claiming to be their land according to Annexure-4.

¶26

6. Since both the lands are different and recorded in the name of different persons, it will not be proper for this Court to pass any order in this case, as the dispute relates to right, title, interest and possession over the land in question which cannot be decided in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶27

7. Prima facie both Annexure-2 & Annexure-4 are in respect of different piece of land with distinct plot numbers and khata numbers. Annexure-2 is recorded in the name of respondent No.6, whereas Annexure-4 is recorded in the name of petitioner.

¶28

8. If the petitioner claims that the respondents are trying to grab the land which belongs to the petitioner, the petitioner should approach the appropriate Civil Court.

¶29

9. Approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India taking into consideration the nature of the dispute, is not an appropriate forum. Thus, I direct the petitioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court.

¶30

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

¶31

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶32

Uploaded on 18/09/2026

¶33

15^th September, 2026 S.K.D/CP-2

¶34

Page | 2

Lolas Lakra v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lolas Lakra v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases