JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying therein for the following reliefs :- (a) That Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents No-1 to 4 to protect the landed property as mentioned in Para 5(i) of the petition from the respondent No- 5 & 7 who have been trying to capture/grab the same forcefully in organized way stating that the Revisional Survey record prepared in the year 1932 is wrong and they don't accept the same and under such circumstances they have damaged and can be said to be mob lynching of the boundary wall of the petitioners erected over the purchased land vide sale deed dated 04.06.2016 executed by their vendor Md. Jamal having 'Bakasht Malik' land in the name of Sita Ram Sahu and other i.e. non tribal. (b) This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the respondent No- 1 to 4 to calculate the damage caused by the respondent No-5 for damaging /mob lynching the boundary wall and recover the same from the respondent No-5 and pay to the petitioners. (c) This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the respondent No- 1 to 4 to provide police protection to protect the lives and land of the petitioners which must be guaranteed under article 21 & 300A of the Constitution of India. 2. The brief facts as per the pleadings are that the property in dispute i.e., Khata No. 189; Plot No. 573; Area 2.81 Acres, Mauza-Purani Ranchi was sold by Md. Jamal after having lawfully inherited the same and running mutation in his name since 2010 in favour of Petitioner no.2 vide a registered sale deed dated 04.06.2016 where the Petitioner no.1 was a confirming party. After the said purchase, the Petitioner no.1 & 2 came into peaceful possession over the said land and got the same mutated in their favour and are paying continuous rent and the Petitioners also constructed a boundary wall over the said land which was demolished by the 5th & 7th Respondents by using criminal force on 11.02.2024. After the said purchase, the Petitioner no.1 & 2 came into peaceful possession over the said land and got the same mutated in their favour and are paying continuous rent and the Petitioners also constructed a boundary wall over the said land which was demolished by the 5th & 7th Respondents by using criminal force on 11.02.2024. Thereafter, FIR being 56/2024 was lodged on 19.2.2024 and even after lodging FIR, the said Respondents threaten for dire consequence and therefore the present writ has been preferred by the Petitioners for seeking protection for their life and property under Article 21 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that after the family settlement, Md. Jamal-the 6th Respondent filed a rent fixation case No. 166/2007-08 for entry of his name. The Anchal Adhikari vide order dated 29.12.2011 found the claim genuine and recommended for fixation of rent to the L.R.D.C., Ranchi and the L.R.D.C., Ranchi also found the claim legally, genuine and affirmed the recommendation of the Anchal Adhikari, Ranchi and allowed the same for opening of demand in the name of Md. Jamal and he subsequently sold the aforesaid property to Petitioner no.2. Thereafter, the 5th Respondent made a representation against the Md. Jamal against the land in question before the Joint Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms and the Joint Secretary vide letter No.6/Jan Aawedar (Ranchi)43/2007- 3687(6)/(s) dated 17.07.2017 directed the Deputy Commissioner to look into the matter. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi directed the 5th Respondent twice to file appeal but they failed and thereafter he directed the Additional Collector, Ranchi to institute a Suo Moto appeal. A Suo Moto Appeal bearing Misc. Appeal Case No- 1/2017-18 was instituted by the Additional Collector, Ranchi in which the 5th Respondent and the 6th Respondent participated in which the Additional Collector asked the opinion of the learned Government Pleader who opined in favour of the 6th Respondent i.e. Md. Jamal vide opinion dated 19.11.2018 and thereafter; considering the ground raised by both the parties disallowed the appeal on 29.11.2018. Aggrieved thereof, the 5th Respondent filed a Revenue Revision Case No. 1/2019 which is pending and the 5th Respondent has not been pursuing the matter properly and still the same is not admitted. 4. Jamal vide opinion dated 19.11.2018 and thereafter; considering the ground raised by both the parties disallowed the appeal on 29.11.2018. Aggrieved thereof, the 5th Respondent filed a Revenue Revision Case No. 1/2019 which is pending and the 5th Respondent has not been pursuing the matter properly and still the same is not admitted. 4. It has been further submitted that Petitioners after assurance that the land is totally defect free constructed boundary wall; however, the 5th Respondent and his associates had demanded heavy amount in Crores which was refused and on 11.02.2024 at about 10:30 A.M. 5th Respondent along with 100- 150 miscreants damaged the entire boundary wall and took C.C.T.V. Camera, rods etc. 5. He further submits that the 5th Respondent is involved in land grabbing in organized way with organized force even where there is no genuine claim of either society or to any individual tribal and the 5th Respondent organized a meeting on 08.02.2024 and agenda was fixed for damaging the boundary wall and on 11.02.2024 the same was done which is apparent from Annexure 11. 6. It has been further submitted that initially the Kotwali police refused to lodge F.I.R. and then the Petitioner No-1 moved to the S.S.P., Ranchi on 15.02.2024 and thereafter the Kotwali P.S. Case No. 56/2024 was lodged U/s 143/149/341/323/379/427/385 of I.P.C. 7. He further submits that the 7th Respondent was also involved in occurrence of 11.02.2024 who has been claiming over the land as tribal land being the descendent of the cadastral survey record of right i.e. old khatiyan. For this learned counsel relied upon judgement of Dwarika Sonar vs Most. Bilguli & others reported in 2003(2) JCR 134 (Jhr) and submits that as per settle principle of law that the new survey record of right prevails over the old survey record of right. 8. It has been further submitted that even after lodging FIR; the 5th Respondent and his associates threaten for dire consequence and thereafter Petitioners represented to the S.S.P. Ranchi on 29.02.2024 but no response has come from that side. From First Information Report, till date the police is not taking any steps and even the investigation is not complete. Having no other alternative the petitioners knocked the doors of this Court by filing this present writ petition seeking protection for their life and property under Article 21 and Article 300A of the Constitution. 9. From First Information Report, till date the police is not taking any steps and even the investigation is not complete. Having no other alternative the petitioners knocked the doors of this Court by filing this present writ petition seeking protection for their life and property under Article 21 and Article 300A of the Constitution. 9. It has been also submitted that the Petitioners have purchased the land with payment of huge consideration and the land is completely genuine viz. the land is a Bakasht land which is neither a tribal, nor a social or religious land and hence any kind of threat over the same is completely violative of article 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. 10. He lastly submits that the Petitioners have got constitutional, legal and human right over the property as well as lives and the State has to ensure the protection of the same from any threat from the organized class of persons. For this he relied upon judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs. State of Maharashtra,  2020 SCC online SC 631. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 7 fairly submits that though they have not filed counter-affidavit, however the claim of the petitioners are not maintainable. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that land in question under dispute between the Petitioners and the 5th & 7th Respondents. On the basis of the written information submitted by the Informant Ripunjay Prasad Singh, Kotwali P.S. Case No. 56/2024 dated 19.02.2024 has been registered under section 143/149/341/379/427/385 of the Indian Penal Code against the named accused persons as well as 100-150 unknown accused persons as a mob has come from somewhere and demolished the boundary wall. Investigating officer started the investigation and recorded the re-statement of the Informant and statement of other witnesses. The Investigating Officer has issued notice under section 41(A) Cr. P.C. to the named accused persons and some of them have submitted their reply also. They have replied that the land in question is their social/religious land and a mob has come from somewhere and demolished the boundary wall, which they don't know. So far, land in question is concerned, they have stated that it is "PAHANI" land and the case is pending in the Court of Commissioner. 13. They have replied that the land in question is their social/religious land and a mob has come from somewhere and demolished the boundary wall, which they don't know. So far, land in question is concerned, they have stated that it is "PAHANI" land and the case is pending in the Court of Commissioner. 13. He further submits that the Investigating Officer has written letter vide Memo No. 1543/23 dated 08.05.2024 to the Circle Officer, Ranchi for providing the report in relation to the ownership of the aforesaid land but the same has not been received till date. 14. He further submits that that the Petitioner doesn't have any valid cause of action against Respondents to approach before the Court and as such no relief should be granted to the petitioner. 15. Learned counsel for the 6th Respondent submits that he was having perfect right, title, interest and possession over the aforesaid land as an absolute owner of the same. He acknowledged the execution and registration deed of sale dated 04.06.2016 in favour of Petitioner no.2-Kanodia builder; however, full consideration amount has not been paid for which he has also instituted Original Suit No.424 of 2019 for cancellation of Deed of sale dated 04.06.2016 and the same is sub-judice. 16. He further submits that earlier one Swaraj Oraon had preferred an application under Section 71A of CNT Act against the answering Respondent before Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi seeking restoration of land in question which was registered as SAR Case 75 of 1998-99; however, the same was dismissed on contest vide order dated 14.08.1999 observing that land in dispute does not belong to 'Adiwasi Khata' rather; the same recorded as 'Bakast Malik' in the name of Sitaram Sahu and Others. He lastly submits that against said Order dated 14.08.1999 passed in SAR Case 75 of 1998-99, no appeal/revision has been preferred, as such same attains to its finality. 17. Having heard learned counsels for the rival parties and after going through documents annexed with the respective affidavits it appears that the property in dispute i.e., Khata No. 189; Plot No. 573; Area 2.81 Acres, Mauza-Purani Ranchi was sold by Md. Jamal after having lawfully inherited the same and running mutation in his name since 2010 in favour of Petitioner no.2 vide a registered sale deed dated 04.06.2016 where the Petitioner no.1 was a confirming party. Jamal after having lawfully inherited the same and running mutation in his name since 2010 in favour of Petitioner no.2 vide a registered sale deed dated 04.06.2016 where the Petitioner no.1 was a confirming party. After the said purchase, the Petitioner no.1 & 2 came into peaceful possession over the said land and got the same mutated in their favour and are paying continuous rent. It further transpires from the record that The Anchal Adhikari vide order dated 29.12.2011 found the claim genuine and recommended for fixation of rent to the L.R.D.C., Ranchi and the L.R.D.C., Ranchi also found the claim legally genuine and affirmed the recommendation of the Anchal Adhikari, Ranchi and allowed the same for opening of demand in the name of Md. Jamal. Thereafter, the 5th Respondent made a representation against the Md. Jamal against the land in question before the Joint Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms and the Joint Secretary vide letter No.6/Jan Aawedar (Ranchi)43/2007- 3687(6)/(s) dated 17.07.2017 directed the Deputy Commissioner to look into the matter. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi directed the 5th Respondent twice to file appeal but they failed and thereafter he directed the Additional Collector, Ranchi to institute a Suo Moto appeal. A Suo Moto Appeal bearing Misc. Appeal Case No-1/2017-18 was instituted by the Additional Collector, Ranchi in which the 5th Respondent and the 6th Respondent participated in which the Additional Collector asked the opinion of the learned Government Pleader who opined in favour of the 6th Respondent i.e. Md. Jamal vide opinion dated 19.11.2018 and thereafter after considering the ground raised by both the parties disallowed the appeal on 29.11.2018. Aggrieved thereof; the 5th Respondent filed a Revenue Revision Case No. 1/2019 which is pending and further he has not been pursuing the matter properly and still the same is not admitted. 18. It further appears from the record that earlier one SAR Case 75 of 1998-99 was preferred; however, the same was dismissed on contest vide order dated 14.08.1999 observing that land in dispute does not belong to 'Adiwasi Khata' rather; the same recorded as 'Bakast Malik' in the name of Sitaram Sahu and Others and no appeal/ revision has been preferred, as such same attains to its finality. 19. 19. Thereafter, the Petitioners constructed a boundary wall over the said land which was perhaps demolished by 5th & 7th Respondent on 11.02.2024 and thereafter, FIR being 56/2024 was lodged on 19.2.2024. 20. It also appears from the supplementary affidavit that an enquiry was conducted by the Additional Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Ranchi regarding the land of Khata No-157, Plot No-472 on application of one Lobin Hembrom, Member Legislative Assembly, Jharkhand, Ranchi vide application dated 02.03.2024. The entire revenue authorities viz. Anchal Amin, Town-Ranchi, Revenue Sub Inspector, Town-Ranchi, Circle Inspector, Town- Ranchi, Anchal Adhikari, Town-Ranchi, The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ranchi participated in the enquiry and vide letter No- 867 (II) dated 29.02.2024, a report was submitted that land appertaining to Khata No-189, Plot No-573 measuring area 2.81 Acres was recorded in Khatiyan in the name of the Ex-landlord Sita Ram Sahu and presently in Register-II, Page-22/43; it is recorded in the name of Kannodia Builders LLP Director-Rekha Khewat i.e. petitioner no.2 for area measuring 2.81 acres. On spot inspection it is found that a boundary wall was constructed and the same has been broken and the said report is annexed as Annexure 15 series. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid report that property in issue is recorded in the name of Petitioner no.2 and some external elements are disturbing and threatening the Petitioners to do any work and have also damaged the Boundary Wall constructed by the Petitioner for which one criminal case is also instituted and is in progress. 21. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 9 SCC 356 that the right to property may not be a fundamental right any longer, but it is still a constitutional right under Article 300-A and a human right and no person can be deprived of its property except due process of law and the High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are duty- bound to exercise such power where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised discretion conferred upon it by a statute. For better appreciation relevant para of aforesaid judgement are quoted herein below: “96. For better appreciation relevant para of aforesaid judgement are quoted herein below: “96. The right to property may not be a fundamental right any longer, but it is still a constitutional right under Article 300-A and a human right as observed by this Court in Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel . In view of the mandate of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, no person is to be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. The appellant Trust cannot be deprived of its property save in accordance with law. 100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are duty-bound to exercise such power, where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised discretion conferred upon it by a statute, or a rule, or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide, or on irrelevant consideration. 103. The Court is duty-bound to issue a writ of mandamus for enforcement of a public duty. There can be no doubt that an important requisite for issue of mandamus is that mandamus lies to enforce a legal duty. This duty must be shown to exist towards the applicant. A statutory duty must exist before it can be enforced through mandamus. Unless a statutory duty or right can be read in the provision, mandamus cannot be issued to enforce the same.’’ 22. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case and judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust (supra) the instant writ application is allowed and State Respondents are directed to protect the landed property as mentioned in the Writ Petition from the any anti-social elements and to provide police protection to protect the lives and land of the Petitioners and sufficient police protection be also provided to them at the time of erection of the boundary wall. As a result, the instant Writ Petition stands disposed of in the manner indicated hereinabove.