IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3949 of 2024 --- 1. Naresh Pandey 2. Parmanand Pandey 3. Ramsewak Pandey All are sons of Late Bhuneshwar Pandey, residents of Village- Tandwa, P.O. & P.S.- Tandwa, District- Chatra … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra 4. The Additional Collector, Chatra 5. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Simaria, District-Chatra 6. The Circle Officer, Tandwa, District- Chatra 7. Guran Mali son of Late Tetar Mali, resident of Village- Tandwa, P.O. & P.S. – Tandwa, District- Chatra …. … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioners : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 6 : Ms. Sunita Kumari, A.C. to Sr.S.C.-II Order No. 05 Dated: 23.01.2025 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.10.2018 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) passed by the Circle Officer, Tandwa (the respondent no. 6) in Misc. Case No. 27 of 2018-19 whereby long running Jamabandi standing in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners with respect to the land appertaining to Khata No. 81, R.S. Plot nos. 882 & 906 Mouza- Tandwa, P.O. & P.S.- Tandwa, District- Chatra measuring an area of 1.06 acres, has been cancelled at the instance of the respondent no. 7. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Simaria (the respondent no.5) In Misc. Case No. 23 of 2018-19 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners challenging the aforesaid order passed by the respondent no. 6 has been dismissed. 2 W.P.(C) No.3949 of 2024 2. Ms. Sunita Kumari, learned A.C. to Sr.S.C.-II appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 6, submits that the petitioners have efficacious remedy of preferring revision under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant’s Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (in short, “the Act, 1973”) against the orders dated 22.10.2018 and 12.04.2022 passed by the respondent nos. 6 and 5 in Misc. Case Nos. 27 of 2018-19 and 23 of 2018-19 respectively. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that the petitioners have efficacious remedy of preferring revision under Section 16 of the Act, 1973 against the aforesaid orders passed by the respondent nos. 6 and 5 in Misc. Case No. 27 of 2018-19 and Misc. Case No. 23 of 2018-19 respectively, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition on merit at this stage. 4. However, if the petitioners prefer revision against the orders dated 22.10.2018 and 12.04.2022 passed by the respondent nos. 6 and 5 in Misc. Case Nos. 27 of 2018-19 and 23 of 2018-19 respectively before the revisional authority under Section 16 of the Act, 1973 within three weeks from today along with an application for condonation of delay, the revisional authority shall consider the said application leniently and shall decide the said revision on its own merit after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the respondent no. 7. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Ritesh/ (Rajesh Shankar, J.)