( 2026:JHHC:14395-DB ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 11 of 2024 1. Sudarshan Prasad Sah, age about 74 years, son of Late Jagarnath Sah; 2. Prashant Kumar Rajesh, age about 69 years, son of Late Jagarnath Sah; 3. Rajendra Kumar age about 66 yrs. son of Late Jagarnath Sah; All residents of village Aguiyabandh No. 71, S.C. P.O. Kharbani Pargadih, P.S.- Jama, District- Dumka. ….. ….. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, P.O. Dumka, P.S.- Dumka, District- Dumka (Jharkhand). 3. The Settlement Officer, Dumka, P.O. Dumka, P.S.-Dumka, District- Dumka (Jharkhand). 4. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Dumka, P.O. Dumka, P.S.-Dumka, District- Dumka (Jharkhand). 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, P.O. Dumka, P.S.-Dumka, District- Dumka (Jharkhand). 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka, P.O. Dumka, P.S.- Dumka, District- Dumka (Jharkhand). 7. The Circle Officer, Masalia, Dumka, P.O. Dumka, P.S.- Dumka, District- Dumka (Jharkhand). 8. Mostt. Lakhia Devi wife of Late Lakhpati Singh; 9. Gnaesh Roy son of Late Lakhpati Singh; 10. Sudan Roy son of Late Lakhpati Singh; 11. Bhuwan Roy son of Late Lakhpati Singh; 12. Titu Roy son of Late Lakhpati Singh; 13. 16 Anna Raiyats of village Aguiyabandh; All residents of village Aguiyabandh No. 71, S.C. P.O. Kharbani Pargadih, P.S.- Jama, District- Dumka (Jharkhand). … ... Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ------ For the Petitioners : Mr Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate Ms Rita Kumari, Advocate Mr Om Prakash, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr Ratnesh Kumar, SC(L&C)-I For the Resp. Nos. 8 to 13 : Mr Indu Shekhar Gupta, Advocate ----- 06 /Dated: 12.05.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition seeks review of the judgment and order dated 19.05.2023, dismissing L.P.A. No. 212 of 2019. ( 2026:JHHC:14395-DB ) 2 3. Mr Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the review petitioners, submits that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, inasmuch as the impugned order states that there was no specific prayer to challenge the orders dated 19.02.2007 and 25.06.1987. He points out that in paragraph-6 of the impugned order, the prayer clause has been quoted, and the quotation clearly refers to the impugned orders of the learned Commissioner, Settlement Officer and Assistant Settlement Officer as being prejudicial and that such orders are fit to be quashed by this Court. 4. Mr Sharma, therefore, submits that the impugned order proceeds on the premise that there was no specific prayer, when in fact, there was a specific prayer. On this ground, he submits that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, which is required to be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no case for the exercise of review jurisdiction. They submit that the prayers are vague and, in any event, the absence of prayers was not the only ground on which the impugned order was made. They submit that the review petitioners have raised factual issues, including adverse possession and the claim that Lakhpati Singh is an impostor rather than the grandson of Lakhiya Devi. They submit that such factual issues could never have been determined in a writ petition or in an appeal against an order made in the writ petition. Accordingly, they submit that there is no error, much less any error apparent on the face of the record, warranting interference by exercising review jurisdiction. 6. The rival conventions now fall for our determination. ( 2026:JHHC:14395-DB ) 3 7. The absence of specific prayer clauses is certainly not the sole ground for dismissing the L.P.A. No. 212 of 2019. There are several other weightier grounds in the impugned order justifying the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal. There is no error insofar as such other grounds are concerned. 8. In paragraph-6, the prayer clause has been quoted. The prayer clause is most confusing, and we cannot seriously fault the learned single judge’s observation. However, even assuming that somewhere in the centre of this prayer clause there was a challenge to the impugned order, we are still satisfied that the absence of a specific prayer clause was not the sole ground, or in any event the main ground, for dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal. 9. The impugned order refers to the defence of adverse possession raised by the review petitioners. It also refers to the contention that Lakhpathi Singh was an imposter and not a grandson of Lakhiya Devi, who is alleged to have died issueless. Now these are not matters that can be either decided conclusively by the Revenue Authorities or, in any event, by a Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Appeal Court has correctly held that the learned Single Judge in this case was justified in not deciding such factual disputes. 10. Further, the learned Single Judge in this case has not rejected the review petitioners’ claim of adverse possession. Learned Single Judge, disposed of the writ petition without interfering with the order impugned with the observation, that if any proceedings for eviction are initiated against the petitioners, then, it would be open to the petitioners to establish their claim of adverse possession, if any, over the property and such proceedings will be ( 2026:JHHC:14395-DB ) 4 decided without being influenced by the observations made in the order dated 19.02.2007 passed in R.M. Case No. 252 of 1987-1988. 11. The Division Bench in the impugned order has endorsed this decision of the learned Single Judge by dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal. In such circumstances, we see no error, much less any error apparent on the face of the record, to warrant interference by exercising our limited review jurisdiction. 12. Accordingly, this review petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed without any order for costs. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) May 12, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. NAFR Uploaded on 13.05.2026