Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:34895-DB p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 142 of 2024 Panchami Devi @ Panchami Mundain, Aged about 46 years, Wife of Late Ghasu Munda, Resident of Village: Tau, P.O. & P.S.: Bundu, District: Ranchi. ... Respondent/Appellant Versus 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. The Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, P.O.: G.P.O., P.S.: Kotwali, District: Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O.: G.P.O., P.S.: Kotwali, District: Ranchi. 4. The Special Officer S.A.R. -cum- Sub-Divisional Officer, Khunti, P.O., P.S. & District: Khunti. … … Respondents/Respondents 5. Dhan Singh Mahto, Son of Late Kartik Mahto 6. Narendra Mahto, Son of Late Raghua Mahto 7. Kishore Mahto, Son of Late Tarini Mahto @ Late Raghua Mahto 8. Birsha Mahto, Son of Late Tarini Mahto @ Taranlal Mahto 9. Deepak Mahto, Son of Late Tarini Mahto @ Taranlal Mahto 10. Most. Hemanti Devi, Wife of Late Ganesh Mahto. All residents of Village: Tau, P.O. & P.S.: Bundu, District: Ranchi. ... Petitioners/Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellant: Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwari, Advocate Md. Imran Beg, Advocate For the State: Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, A.C. to S.C.-IV For Resp. Nos.5-10: Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate --------- 10/Dated: 24.11.2025 Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.(Oral) I.A. No. 7500 of 2024 1. Although this application is vehemently opposed, however, given the fact that at the time the appeal was filed there was only 25 Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:34895-DB p. 2 days’ delay, but since the certified copy had not been filed and was filed belatedly, the total delay has accumulated to 145 days which has been sufficiently explained in the application seeking condonation of delay. 2. Accordingly, the delay of 145 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. I.A. No.7500 of 2024 stands allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No. 142 of 2024 4. The private respondent 5 to 10, who were the writ petitioners, approached the Writ Court for quashing the order dated 12th of June 2017 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, in SAR Revision No. 61 of 2010 on various grounds. However, the only ground which led the learned Writ Court for setting aside the order was that the same had been passed in favour of a dead person, namely, Durga Mani Mundain. Accordingly, the order, as referred to above, was set aside by the learned Writ Court as being a nullity. 5. As regards this part of the order, this Court has no difficulty in concluding that the order in favour of a dead person is a nullity as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishun @ Ram Kishun (Dead) LRs v. Behari (Dead) Through LRs reported in (2005) 6 SCC 300, as rightly noted by the Writ Court, but leaving the matter at that stage is something which is not acceptable to this Court. After all, when an order is declared to be a nullity only on the technical ground of a party having died, the proceedings after should be conducted Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:34895-DB p. 3 afresh in accordance with law and the lis cannot be given a quit on this ground alone. 6. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Writ Court to that extent is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi and SAR Revision No. 61 of 2010 shall be restored in the event of the petitioner moving an appropriate application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased-respondent Durga Mani Mundain. The Commissioner shall thereafter proceed to decide the lis in accordance with law including the determination of the lis regarding the substitution of the LRs and the sufficiency of cause shown for not bringing on records such LRs. 7. With the aforesaid directions and observations, this appeal stands disposed of. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) November 24, 2025 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Pramanik/Cp.2 Uploaded on 25.11.2025