2026:JHHC:14133 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.3776 of 2018 ------ 1. Taj Mohammad, son of Late Ash Mohammad. 2. Sahanad Khatun 3. Sahina Khatun Both petitioner nos. 2 & 3 are daughter of Late Ash Mohammad. All resident of Village Parasiya, P.O. Ghanghari, P.S. Hunterganj, District Chatra. … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, P.O. + P.S. & District Chatra. 3. Additional Collector, Chatra, P.O. + P.S. & District Chatra. 4. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra, P.O. + P.S. & District Chatra. 5. Circle Officer, Hunterganj, District Chatra. 6. Fatima Bibi, wife of Late Mohammad Ali 7. Khalid Ali 8. Ajhar 9. Akbar 10. Jubair Respondent Nos.7-10 are sons of Late Mohammad Ali. All resident of Fesuwa Bagan, Basir, Basir Hazam Ki Badi (Chapadani), P.S. Faltaghat, District Hugli, West Bengal. 11. Manjoor Alam, son of Md. Zalil Ansari, resident of Village Parasiya, P.O. Ghanghari, P.S. Hunterganj, District Chatra. 12. Md. Nejam, son of Bakru Miyan, resident of Village Ghanghari, P.S. Bashisthanagar (Jori), District Chatra. 13. Asiya Khatoon, wife of Md. Zahangir, resident of Village Parasiya, P.O. Ganghari, P.S. Hunterganj, District Chatra. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, Advocate Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Shalini Shahdeo, AC to SC (L&C)-I Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Advocate Ms. Kumari Priyambada, Advocate Ms. Micky Kumari, Advocate ------ 13/ 11.05.2026 Heard learned counsel representing the petitioners and learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. In this writ petition, the original petitioner had challenged the order dated 22.05.2018 in Mutation Revision No.20/2015, 2026:JHHC:14133 2 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Chatra, whereby the Mutation Revision Application of the original petitioner was dismissed on the ground of delay. 3. Admittedly, there was a delay of 55 days in filing the Revision Application. 4. The petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has also been brought on record, as Annexure-4 to the supplementary affidavit. The reason which has been mentioned in the Limitation Petition is that the original petitioner had received the certified copy of the order at belated stage and that is the reason for filing the Revision Application belatedly. Further, it has been mentioned that the petitioner is a poor person because of which, there is a delay in filing of the Revision Application due to lack of fund. 5. The reasons mentioned in the Limitation Petition are absolutely vague and are not trustworthy. 6. The date of filing of an application to seek the certified copy and the date when the original petitioner received the same, have also not been mentioned. Merely, in a very casual manner, the Limitation Petition has been filed. The Court concerned has correctly held that the original petitioner has not put forth any reason to condone the delay and accordingly rejected the prayer for condonation of delay and dismissed the Revision Application, thus I find no illegality in the impugned order. 7. If the petitioners have got any right, title and interest over the property in question, it will be open to them to file a civil suit. 8. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 11th May, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 14.05.2026