2026:JHHC:3788 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 94 of 2023 Rajendra Prasad aged about 60 years, son of Late Ramnath Prasad, resident of Halud Boni, P.O. and P.S. Parsudih, District- Singhbhum East through his constituted attorney namely Dindayal Prasad, son of Tribeni Prasad Saw, resident of Parsudih, C/o Shyam Talkies, Parsudih, P.O. and P.S. Parsudih, District- Singhbhum East … … Petitioner/Appellant/Petitioner -Versus- 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi 3. Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum 4. Special Officer, Scheduled Areas Regulation, Jamshedpur Town, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.- Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum 5. Jitu Bhumij, son of Late Doman Bhumij, resident of village Halud Boni, P.O. andP.S. Parsudih, District Singhbhum East … … Respondents/Respondents/Opposite Parties --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. K. K. Ambastha, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate Mr. Anurag Chandra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Shalini Shahdeo, Advocate --- 05/11th February 2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This petition has been filed for review of the judgment dated 14.08.2018 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 3896 of 2003, which has been dismissed vide judgment dated 14.08.2018. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal, against the judgment passed in W.P. (C) No. 3896 of 2003, being L.P.A. No. 765 of 2019 was also dismissed as not pressed. 2026:JHHC:3788 2 Arguments of the petitioner 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the appellant had prayed for not to press the aforesaid L.P.A., so as to file a review application and accordingly the present review application has been filed. 5. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has placed Annexure-3 series, which are the rent receipts and also placed the documents relating to mutation as contained in Annexure-9 series and Annexure-10 is the report of the Circle Officer. 6. The learned counsel submits that on the basis of the rent receipts and the mutation register, it is apparent that the petitioner is in possession of the property since 1965-66. He has also submitted that in Annexure-10 series, there is a report of the Circle Officer which was called for at the appellate stage i.e. S.A.R. Appeal No. 59/1997-98 and as per the report, the petitioner was in possession of the property since 1965-66. 7. The learned counsel submits that as per the finding recorded by the Writ Court, the petitioner had totally failed to establish before any of the authorities that he was in possession of the property since 1940 or 1965. He has submitted that the entire records of the appellate authority was not called for at the time of final hearing. The records of the appellate authority would have demonstrated that the petitioner has been in possession since 1965-66 and the application for restoration of land was filed way back in the year 1996-97 in S.A.R. Case No. 27/1996-97. The mutation was allowed in Mutation Case No. 251/1965-66. Neither the exact date of mutation is available in the review application nor the order of mutation has been annexed. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to give the exact date of filing of the S.A.R. Case. However, the case number is S.A.R. Case No. 27/1996-97. The compromise decree is dated 22.04.1965. 8. During the course of argument, it also transpired that the appellant had filed two compromise petitions in the present case. One is in Title 2026:JHHC:3788 3 Suit No. 565/1964 which is dated 10.08.1964 and the other is in Title Suit No. 1475/1964 which is dated 22.04.1965. 9. The learned counsel has submitted that in the writ petition only one compromise petition was filed which is relating to Title Suit No. 565/1964 and the compromise in Title Suit No. 1475/1964 was not filed. The learned counsel submits that both the compromise are in connection with the same property. The learned counsel submits that the compromise decree in Title Suit No. 565/1964 is in relation to Khata No. 184 which is the property involved in the present case. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that there is no apparent error on record, so far as the judgment passed by the writ court is concerned, but there is mistake on the part of the petitioner who has not produced all the relevant documents at earlier stage before the writ court. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court reported in 2024 Supreme (Cal) 446 (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr. vs. Sarvesh Kumar & Others), paragraph 16 which in turn has referred to the judgement of the Hon’ble supreme court reported in (1955) 1 SCR 520 to submit that a court may allow review in terms of order 47 rule 1 on any of the three specified grounds: - (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed. (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. (iii) For any other sufficient reason. It has been held by the judicial Committee that the words “any other sufficient reason” must mean “a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule” but the said rule is not universal.” Arguments of the respondents 12. The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer and has submitted that it was the case of the petitioner throughout that he was 2026:JHHC:3788 4 in possession of the property since 1940. The learned counsel further submits that the rent receipts were also issued in the name of private respondent which is apparent from the order of the Deputy Commissioner in S.A.R. Appeal No. 59/1997-98, wherein it has been recorded that the rent up to the year 1996-97 was paid to the State of Bihar by Respondent- Jitu Bhumij on behalf of himself and his co-sharers. The learned counsel has submitted that apparently there are parallel rent receipts for overlapping period between the petitioner and the private respondent. 13. The learned counsel has also submitted that as per the order of the Commissioner and the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Commissioner, they claimed the property to be in possession since 1940 and also asserted that the raiyats had left the village and settled in Bengal and suddenly in the year 1964, they started disturbing the possession of the petitioner. She has submitted that the possession of the petitioner remained disturbed since 1964 itself. Findings of this Court 14. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that before the authorities, the petitioner has been claiming that he was in possession since 1946 and the private respondent had disturbed their possession suddenly in the year 1964 and ultimately title Suit was filed which ended in compromise. 15. Numerous documents are sought to be placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which were not placed in the writ record and they were not forming part of the proceedings before the concerned authorities. These documents have been filed for the first time in the review proceedings by stating that these documents are very old and could not be procured by the petitioner and therefore the documents could not have been produced at earlier stage. 16. During the course of argument, it also transpired that it has been asserted in the review petition that there was amicable partition between the Ramnath Prasad and Rajnath Prasad and 43 decimals came in the 2026:JHHC:3788 5 share of each one of them. There is no limitation as prescribed under Section 71-A of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act. However, law is well settled that such application for restoration cannot be filed after inordinate delay and particularly when the possession remained undisturbed from the side of the member of the Schedule Tribe concerned. 17. The impugned judgment reveal that the petitioner claimed possession since 1940. Their possession was sought to be disturbed in 1964 and thereafter two suits were filed which ended in compromise. In the compromise petitions also, the date of possession of the petitioner has not been acknowledged and in the compromise, it has been stated that the concerned Tribal will not disturb the possession of the plaintiff. The compromise petition itself reveals that the defendant undertook not to disturb with the right, title and interest of the plaintiff with respect to the land in future. 18. In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) reported in (2000) 4 PLJR 787 (Kesho Sao & Anr. vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue & Others), it has been held that a non-tribal cannot acquire title through compromise. Portion of the said judgement relevant for the purposes of this case is quoted as under: - “ 4. …………………………………………………………………… It is well settled that compromise decree passed by Civil Court declaring title and possession of a party who is not a member of Schedule Tribe in respect of land of recorded raiyat belonging to member of Schedule Tribe cannot be given effect to and such decree will amount to dispossessing the raiyat by fraudulent method. Suffice it to refer only one Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of “Ramnarain Sah v. State of Bihar (1975, BBCJ-433). ……………………………………………………………………….” 19. This Court finds that the petitioner is trying to make out a completely new case with respect to date of possession and the possession of the petitioner remained questioned as back as in the year 1964 itself and as is apparent from the impugned judgment, the rent receipts was 2026:JHHC:3788 6 issued not only in favour of the petitioner, but also in favour of the private respondent. 20. In the judgment passed in S.A.R. Appeal No. 59/1997-98, the specific case of the petitioner has been recorded, wherein the petitioner had taken a stand that the predecessor of the petitioner got their name mutated in Register-II of the Anchal Officer and had been in possession of the land in question of the year 1965. 21. This Court finds that the documents, which have been sought to be brought on record, are not such documents which can be said that the petitioner has discovered new and important matter of evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the petitioner’s knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the judgment of the writ court was passed or the order of the authorities was passed and accordingly, the new documents, which are sought to be introduced by the petitioner in this review petition, cannot be entertained. 22. The law is well-settled that with respect to exercise of power of certiorari under writ jurisdiction, the scope of interference is very limited and now in the review application of the writ order, for the first time, the petitioner is trying to introduced new documents and new facts, which are contrary to the stand and facts placed on record before the authorities concerned/before the writ proceedings. Further, the review has been filed after withdrawal of L.P.A. 23. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain this review petition, which is hereby dismissed. 24. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 11.02.2026 Uploaded On: Mukul/-