The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Chas, for deployment of police force in connection with a disputed parcel of land in Bokaro. The Court held that the SDO's action was aimed at maintaining law and order and found no arbitrariness or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Md. Shahid Raja, who sought quashing of the SDO's order dated April 10, 2012. He claimed that his father had purchased eight decimals of land in Plot No. 464 at Mauja Tetulia through a registered sale deed in 1979, obtained mutation in the revenue records, regularly paid rent, and remained in peaceful possession of the property.
According to the petitioner, the SDO later directed deployment of police force to hand over possession of the entire 58-decimal plot to respondent Ram Bahadur Singh based on a police report. He argued that the order was passed without jurisdiction and that he was forcibly dispossessed because of it.
The State, however, maintained that the order had been issued only to preserve law and order. It informed the Court that respondent Ram Bahadur Singh had earlier complained that persons were attempting to occupy his land. Revenue authorities had measured the property after he deposited the required fee, and reports indicated that the land was enclosed by a boundary wall and remained in his possession. Later, during the pendency of the case, the land was sold to respondent Sharda Devi, whose name was also mutated in the revenue records.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Court's Observations
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi noted that official records showed respondent Ram Bahadur Singh had purchased the disputed eight decimals of land through a registered sale deed and had approached the authorities for measurement. The measurement proceedings found him in possession of the land, following which administrative authorities acted after receiving reports regarding possible disturbance of peace.
The Court also observed that subsequent verification ordered by the Deputy Commissioner during the pendency of the writ petition found respondent Sharda Devi in possession of the land after its purchase from Ram Bahadur Singh. Her name had also been entered in Register-II following mutation.
Significantly, the Court found that although the petitioner had stated in the writ petition that he would produce the relevant sale deeds during the hearing, those documents were never placed on record. The Court remarked that this omission raised questions regarding the petitioner's claim and suggested that he had not disclosed all material facts before invoking the writ jurisdiction.
The Bench further held that disputes relating to land boundaries, encroachment and possession involve disputed questions of fact that cannot ordinarily be decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
"The answer is flatly 'no'. If such things have been hidden by the petitioner himself... the disputed question of fact can only be a subject matter of suit," the Court observed while explaining why the writ jurisdiction could not be invoked in such circumstances.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the High Court reiterated that courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering with executive decisions taken to maintain public order unless there is clear evidence of abuse of power or patent illegality. It also emphasized that Article 226 is not an appellate forum for resolving complex factual disputes.
The Bench distinguished the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, holding that both decisions were based on different factual circumstances and therefore offered no assistance in the present dispute.
Decision
After examining the record, the High Court concluded that the SDO's order was passed for maintaining law and order and fell within the authority of the district administration. It found no arbitrariness or illegality in the administrative action and held that the petition primarily involved disputed issues of title and possession, which must be adjudicated before the appropriate civil forum rather than in writ proceedings.
Case Details:
Case Title: Md. Shahid Raja v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Case Number: W.P. (C.) No. 4667 of 2012
Judge: Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Decision Date: 7 July 2026
