Harivansh Choudhary Vs State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary Government of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:2846

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(C) No. 2086 of 2022

Harivansh Choudhary, aged about 58 years, son of Late Harishankar Choudhary, resident of Shashtri Chowk, Lohardaga, P.O., P.S and District Lohardaga (Jharkhand) ... … Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O-Dhurwa & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi

¶7

Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi

¶8

Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga, P.O and P.S and District Lohardaga

¶9

Additional Collector, Lohardaga, P.O and P.S and District Lohardaga

¶10

Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Lohardaga, P.O, and P.S and District Lohardaga

¶11

Circle Officer, Lohardaga, P.O and P.S and District Lohardaga

¶12

Rajendra Prasad son of Late Suraj Prasad, resident of Hatia Garden, Lohardaga, P.O, and P.S and District Lohardaga ... … Respondent(s)

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶14

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amar Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrestha Gautam, Advocate

¶15

¶16

Order No. 09 /Dated: 3^rd February 2026

¶17

The instant writ application has been preferred by the

¶18

petitioner for the following reliefs:

¶19

“1.That in the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ/rule/order/direction for quashing of the order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in Misc. Revision Case No. 01 of 2022 and subsequent order dated 25.04.2022 in the said Misc. Revision Case no. 01 of 2022 (contained in Annexure-11 series) to the writ petition whereby and whereunder the respondent no.2 has illegally and erroneously allowed the said Misc. Revision Case No. 01 of 2022 filed by the respondent no.7 although the Divisional Commissioner has no jurisdiction under the provisions contained in Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records Act) 1973 and for such other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is legally entitled to.”

¶20

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner raises a preliminary objection with regard to the impugned order passed by the

¶21

1

¶22

2026:JHHC:2846

¶23

respondent no.2-Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi. He submits that the revision application filed by the private respondent was not legal, inasmuch as, the revisional authority was not empowered to pass any order on revision application after the amendment made in Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records Act) 1973 by virtue of Amendment Act, 1983. This is the sole contention made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶24

Learned counsel for the Respondent no.7 has tried to impress upon this Court that illegality has been committed. He submits that it is true that the revisional Court has no jurisdiction but the fact remains that without following proper procedure the petitioner has got his name entered in the records of right as such the revisional Court though having no jurisdiction but has decided the issue in the correct manner and solely on the basis of revenue records starting from Khatiyan .

¶25

However, even after much deliberation he could not satisfy this Court on the question of maintainability that after the amendment made in the year 1983, there is no provision of revision. He fairly submits that this case may be disposed of by giving liberty to the respondent no.7 to file a fresh application before the appropriate forum.

¶26

Having regard to the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the respondent no.7 and also in view of the fact that the respondent no.2 was having no jurisdiction to entertain revision application, impugned order dated 31.03.2022 as well as subsequent order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in Misc. Revision Case No. 01 of 2022, as contained in Annexure-11 series to the writ application, are hereby, quashed and set aside and accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed solely on the technical ground that the order passed by the respondent no.2 is without jurisdiction.

¶27

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into merits of the case and the respondent no.7 is at liberty to file any appropriate application

¶28

2

¶29

2026:JHHC:2846

¶30

before an appropriate authority as per the law which shall be decided on its own merit.

¶31