logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Jhar HC 156 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Jharkhand
Case No : W.P.(C) No. 2183 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
Parties : Dilip Sahu Versus State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration & Land Reforms Project Bhavan, Ranchi & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: Navneet Toppo, Advocate. For the Respondents: Prashant Kr. Raj, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 06-04-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 JHHC 9572,
Judgment :-

1. Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“a). For the issuance of an appropriate writ, order(s), or direction(s) in the nature of Mandamus, directing the concerned authority to consider the legal representation dated 27/09/2024 (Annexure-5), sent through Speed Post; whereby and whereunder the said representation pertains to the petitioner’s ancestral property, which is being unlawfully sold by unidentified miscreants without a legal family partition of the land by representing themselves original khatiyani raiyat, thereby rendering the transaction illegal and fraudulent.

AND/OR

b) For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is legally entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case for doing equitable and conscionable justice to the petitioner.

3. During the course of argument, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the private respondents of this petition i.e., respondent Nos.5, 6, 7 & 8 are selling the land of the petitioner. He prays that the respondents may be directed not to register the sale-deed and injunct the private respondents from entering into any transaction.

4. Considering the submission of the petitioner, I find that the case relates to declaration of right, title and interest of the property. It is the clear mandate of law that a person cannot transfer title, if he doesn’t have the same. If the respondents do not have any title over the property, their execution of the sale- deed is a nothing but a mere paper transaction.

5. The petitioner is claiming title over the property in question and in fact he is challenging the sale of the land which he claims to be his. Thus, in this case, according to this Court, the sale deed and the entire transaction has to be challenged by the petitioner. The same cannot be considered in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution.

6. The petitioner is at liberty to institute a suit before the appropriate Civil Court, challenging the sale-deeds along with the transactions.

7. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.

 
  CDJLawJournal