Disposed¶32

Md. Hafiz v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Feb 2026WPC/6519/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Jamabandi cancellation; sairat land; Circle Officer, Chatra; Misc. Case No.1/2022-23; Register-II; Land Reforms Deputy Collector; Revenue Sub-Inspector; writ jurisdiction versus civil court; disputed questions of fact; withdrawal with liberty; status quo for three months; Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC; W.P.(C) No.6519 of 2025; High Court of Jharkhand. Relevant for: scope of writ jurisdiction where disputed facts require trial by the competent Civil Court; withdrawal with liberty and interim status quo directions.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to work out the remedy before the competent Civil Court, including three months' time to invoke the civil court jurisdiction with protection under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC; parties directed to maintain status quo for three months.

Md. Hafiz Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 27.04.2024 and the order dated 01.03.2023 passed by the Circle Officer, Chatra in Misc. Case No.1/2022-23, recommending cancellation of the petitioner's Jamabandi over the sairat land, should be quashed. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to work out his remedy in accordance with law, including three months' time to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court with protection under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The various disputes in the matter can be determined only by the competent Civil Court after evaluating the material to be converted into evidence by following due process of law; such dispute cannot be resolved by the writ jurisdiction.

¶25

Key takeaways

The parties are directed to maintain status quo for three months from the date of the order.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand (Rajesh Kumar, J.) disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice dated 27.04.2024 issued by the Circle Officer, Chatra in Misc. Case No.1/2022-23 (State v. Hafij Mian) and an order dated 01.03.2023 recommending cancellation of the petitioner's Jamabandi over sairat land in Mauja Nagwan, Thana No. 182 (Khata Nos. 16, 118 and 119). The Court held that the disputes involved could be determined only by the competent Civil Court after evaluating evidence by due process of law and could not be resolved in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to pursue his remedy before the Civil Court, with three months' time to invoke that jurisdiction including protection under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and the parties were directed to maintain status quo for three months.

¶1

2026:JHHC:2896

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No.6519 of 2025

¶4

¶5

Md. Hafiz, aged about 57 years, Son of Late Abdul Rahim, resident of Village Nagwan, P.O & P.S. Chatra, District Chatra …. …. Petitioner

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

1. The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribag, having its office at Hazaribag, P.O. + P.S. District Hazaribag, Jharkhand

¶9

Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, having its office at Collectorate, Chatra, P.O. + P.S. + District Chatra, Jharkhand

¶10

Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra, having its office at Collectorate, Chatra, P.O. + P.S. District Chatra, Jharkhand

¶11

Circle Officer, Chatra, having its office at Chatra, P.O. + P.S. + District Chatra, Jharkhand …. …. Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶14

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vincent Marki, AC to AAG-III

¶16

¶17

06/Dated: 04^th February, 2026

¶18

1. Heard the parties.

¶19

2. The present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:-

¶20

“(a). for quashing the notice dated 27.04.2024 (Annexure-7) issued to the petitioner by the Circle Officer, Chatra in connection with Misc. Case No.1/2022-23 (State v. Hafij Mian) informing that he has recommended to cancel the Jamabandi of the land pertaining to Mauja Nagwan, Thana No. 182, Khata No.16, Plot No.147, total area .74 acre, Khata No.118, Plot No.151, area .23 acre and Khata No.119, total area 1.13 acre, nature of land Sairat Land, Jamabandi of which land was existing in Register-II at Page No.84/1 in the name of Bibi Kolsam wife of Rahim Mian @ Abdul Rahim vide order dated 01.03.2023 and sent the record of the case to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra and further it has been mentioned in the said notice that it has been reported by the concerned Revenue Sub-Inspector that at present the petitioner is making construction work on the said sairat land in contravention of the order of the Government and therefore the petitioner has been directed to remove the alleged illegal construction from aforesaid the lands within a period of one week.

¶21

(b). for quashing the order dated 01.03.2023 (certified copy not supplied to the petitioner) passed by the Circle Officer, Chatra in connection with Misc. Case No. 1/2022-23 (State v. Hafij Mian) whereby and whereunder, the Circle Officer, Chatra has recommended to cancel Jamabandi existing in Register-II

¶22

2026:JHHC:2895

¶23

at Page No.84/1 in the name of Bibi Kolsam wife of Rahim Mian with respect to the aforesaid lands and sent the record of the case to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra: and,

¶24

(c). During pendency of the writ petition, your Lordship may further be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned notice dated 27.04.2024 issued to the petitioner by the Circle Officer, Chatra as well as the order dated 01.03.2023 passed in connection with Misc. Case No.1/2022-23 (Hafij Mian V. State)by the Circle Officer, Chatra.”

¶25

3. Since there are various disputes which can be determined only by the competent Civil Court after evaluating the material which to be converted into evidence by following due process of law. Such dispute cannot be resolved by the writ jurisdiction.

¶26

4. Facing such situations, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition with a liberty to work out his remedy in accordance with law. Further prayer has been made that at least three months’ time should be granted to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court including the protection under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 if any.

¶27

5. Learned counsel for the State has only asserted that it is sairat land.

¶28

6. Be that as it may, since this is a disputed question of fact which can only

¶29

be resolved by the competent Civil Court by following due process.

¶30

7. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the present writ petition with the aforesaid liberty.

¶31

8. The parties are directed to maintain status quo for three months from today.

¶32

9. With the above observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.