2026:JHHC:17569 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 829 of 2021 ----- Manohar Prasad Soni, age about 52 years, son of Late Jamuna Sao, resident of Village Gadilong, P.O. and P.S. Tandwa, District- Chatra. ....Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State ofJharkhand. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, P.O. and P.S. Chatra, District- Chatra 3. The Additional Collector, Chatra, At /P.O & P.S Chatra, Dist.-Chatra, Jharkhand 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Simaria, At/ P.O & P.S Simaria, Dist- Chatra, Jharkhand 5. Circle Officer, Tandwa, P.O. and P.S. Tandwa, District-Chatra. …Respondent(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr.Deen Bandhu, Advocate For the State : Mr.Manish Mishra, GP-V : Mr. Varsha Ramasisaria, AC to GP-V …...... 12/ 15.06.2026: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- i.That by way of the instant writ petition, Petitioner pray for Quashing of order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Chatra in Revenue Misc. Case NO-03/2020-21 (Annexure-15), where by where under, Deputy Commissioner, District Magistrate, Chatra recalled the order of Jamabandi dated 26/06/2018 passed in Misc. Case No-01/2017 of Petitioner’s land in question on the basis of recall/review petition filed by the Circle Officer, Tandwa ii.Further prayed for the interim stay of operation of order (Annexure-15) passed in Review case no 03/2020-21 till the final disposal of the case. 2. The land in dispute, measuring 2.85 acres under Khata No.222, Plot No.20, situated at Village Tandwa, Chatra, was originally recorded in the name of the then Zamindar. In 1944, the Zamindar settled the land in favour of the petitioner's father, Late Jamuna Saw, through a Hukumnama. Thereafter, Government rent receipts were issued in his name and the petitioner's family remained in possession and cultivated the land for many years. When the land was acquired by NTPC, several inquiries were conducted by the revenue authorities regarding ownership and compensation, after which Jamabandi was cancelled by the revenue authorities in 2015. The petitioner challenged this action before the High Court, which directed him to avail the remedy of appeal/revision. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a revision case before the Deputy Commissioner in which the Jamabandi was restored by order dated 26.06.2018 and compensation of Rs. 42.75 lakh was paid to the petitioner in 2019. Later, in 2020, a review petition was filed alleging fraud and misrepresentation in which the Deputy Commissioner recalled the earlier order and upheld the cancellation of the petitioner's Jamabandi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the review petition was not maintainable as there is no statutory provision conferring power of review upon the Deputy Commissioner in respect of quasi-judicial orders. He further submits that the review petition was filed after considerable delay without any satisfactory explanation, and therefore ought not to have been entertained. He also submits that the allegation of fraud is wholly baseless and unsupported by any material particulars or evidence. The petitioner's possession and cultivation of the land were repeatedly confirmed by the reports of the Circle Officer and other revenue authorities. Mere allegations of fraud is not enough to justify cancellation of Jamabandi. 4. The learned counsel for respondent contends that the petitioner has no valid claim as the alleged Hukumnama, Khalsa receipts, and government rent receipts are forged and fabricated documents. He further submits that neither the petitioner nor his father ever possessed the disputed land and entries in the revenue records were illegally made in collusion with revenue staff. He also submits that the Jamabandi was rightly cancelled in 2015 after examining the records. Upon discovery of the alleged fraud and examination of the records, the Deputy Commissioner rightly reviewed and recalled the restoration order. The petitioner has failed to prove the genuineness of the Hukumnama or any raiyati right over the land. 5. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that the Jamabandi of the petitioner was restored by the Deputy -2- Commissioner vide order dated 26.06.2018 after considering the reports submitted by the Circle Officer and other revenue authorities. It further appears that the petitioner’s possession over the land had been already acknowledged. The review proceeding was initiated after a considerable lapse of time on the allegation of fraud. Further there is no provision for review by Deputy Commissioner in Jharkhand Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. 6. Review is a creature of statute. If the statute does not provide for review of any order, the review of the said order is impermissible. Jurisdiction of review can be derived only from the statute and thus, any order of review in the absence of any statutory provision for the same is a nullity, being without jurisdiction. When there is no statutory provision providing for review, entertaining an application for review or under the garb of clarification/modification/correction is not permissible. The Hon’ble supreme court in the case of Naresh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2019) 9 SCC 416 at paragraph no. 13 has held as under- 13. It is settled law that the power of review can be exercised only when the statute provides for the same. In the absence of any such provision in the statute concerned, such power of review cannot be exercised by the authority concerned. This Court in Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania [Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania, (2010) 9 SCC 437 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 808] , has held as under: (SCC pp. 445-46, paras 12-14) “… 12. It is settled legal proposition that unless the statute/rules so permit, the review application is not maintainable in case of judicial/quasi-judicial orders. In the absence of any provision in the Act granting an express power of review, it is manifest that a review could not be made and the order in review, if passed, is ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction. (Vide Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar [Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar, AIR 1965 SC 1457] and Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh [Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh, AIR 1966 SC 641] .) 13. In Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsinghji [Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsinghji, (1971) 3 SCC 844] , Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan [Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan, (1979) 1 SCC 321] , Kuntesh Gupta v. Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya [Kuntesh Gupta v. Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, (1987) 4 SCC 525 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 491] , State of Orissa v. Commr. of Land Records & Settlement [State of Orissa v. Commr. of Land Records & -3- Settlement, (1998) 7 SCC 162] and Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain [Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain, (2008) 2 SCC 705 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 537] this Court held that the power to [Ed.: The matter between two asterisks has been emphasised in original as well.] review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either expressly/specifically or by necessary implication [Ed.: The matter between two asterisks has been emphasised in original as well.] and in the absence of any provision in the Act/Rules, review of an earlier order is impermissible as review is a creation of statute. Jurisdiction of review can be derived only from the statute and thus, any order of review in the absence of any statutory provision for the same is a nullity, being without jurisdiction. 14. Therefore, in view of the above, the law on the point can be summarised to the effect that in the absence of any statutory provision providing for review, entertaining an application for review or under the garb of clarification/modification/correction is not permissible.” (emphasis supplied) 7. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case and the judgment cited above, I am of the view that the Deputy Commissioner cannot review and recall his own order in the absence of any statutory provision. Thus, the review Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. The order passed in Revenue Misc. Case No. 03/2020-21 (Annexure 15 of the writ petition) is set aside. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 9. Pending I.A., if any, is dispose of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 15th June, 2026 Madhav/- Uploaded on:24/06/2026 AFR -4-