2026:JHHC:18174-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 40 of 2016 Jainath Mahato, son of Late Thakur Mahato, resident of village-Beyang, P.S. Ramgarh, P.O. Bariauth, District- Hazaribagh ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Bihar (Now in Jharkhand ) 2. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. + P.S. - Hazaribagh, Dist..- Hazaribagh 3. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S.-Ramgarh, Dist-Ramgarh. 4. Jagdish Pahan son of Bishu Pahan @ Bishun Pahan 5 (a) Rupesh Pahan son of Late. Jaideo Pahan 6. Madhu Pahan Son of Yuraj Pahan 7 (a) Surendra Pahan son of Late Saryu Pahan @ Sardhu Pahan 7 (b) Manik Pahan son of Late Saryu Pahan @ Sardhu Pahan 7 (c) Tanika Pahan son of late Saryu Pahan @ Sardhu Pahan All are resident of Village – Beyang, P.S. Ramgarh, P.O. Bariatu, Dist. Hazaribagh. ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Sunil Kumar Mahto, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, S.C.-I. Mr. Mihir Kunal Ekka, A.C. to S.C.-I. Mr. Arjun Narayan Deo, Advocate. --------- 10/Dated: 22.06.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This review petition seeks a review of the coordinate Bench’s order dated 16th June 2016. 3. This review petition was filed on 20.07.2016, along with several office objections. The record shows that the matters were fixed before the Registry for clearance of objections. On most occasions, neither the parties nor their Advocates appeared before the Registry. Thereafter, time was obtained to clear the office objections, which were again not cleared. Ultimately, sometime in 2019, the office objections were cleared. By that time, one of the members of the Bench, Hon’ble Mr Justice Virender Singh, the then Chief Justice, had already retired. 4. After that, notices were issued to the respondents, and, surprisingly, it took almost three years to effect service. This was after 2026:JHHC:18174-DB 2 several opportunities were granted and adjournments were obtained. By the time the service was completed, the other member of the Bench, Hon’ble Mr Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, [as His Lordship then was], was not available. 5. This review petition has been filed after a change of counsel, and on perusing the grounds in the review petition, we are satisfied that they do not make out any case of an error apparent on the face of the record warranting the exercise of our review jurisdiction. 6. Mr Rajeeva Sharma, the learned Senior Advocate for the review petitioner, assailed the observations in paragraph 3 of the judgment and order dated 16th June, 2016, by pointing out that the review petitioner had not set up any new case, but this was the precise case set up before the D.C.L.R., who made the order dated 27th April, 1993 and also in the Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings. He submitted that by incorrectly holding that the review petitioner had tried to make out a new case, relief has been denied to the review petitioner and that this constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. 7. The record shows that the so-called error (assuming it to be an error) reflects the position held by the D.C.L.R. in the impugned order dated 27th April 1993. This is the order that was challenged by the review petitioner through C.W.J.C. No. 2969 of 1993 (R). Assuming that this error was assailed before the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition, the same was never corrected, or rather, the contention of the review petitioner that this was an error was never accepted. 8. In the appeal, therefore, the appeal Bench in its order dated 16th June 2016, was entitled to observe that the review petitioner was bent upon developing an altogether new case. There is no error, much less an error apparent on the face of record, as is now sought to be contended after all these years. 2026:JHHC:18174-DB 3 9. Besides, we note that the orders of the learned Single Judge and the appeal court are not based on this singular circumstance of the review petitioner attempting to make out a new case. There are concurrent findings which have not been interfered with, given the limited scope of jurisdiction of a writ Court and the appeal Bench. 10. The Appeal Court, in paragraphs 4 and 5, has also recorded certain findings which are unassailable and which have not even been assailed. The Appellate Court has referred to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the context of tribal lands and the transfer thereof without following the course of law. 11. For all the above reasons, we see no merit in this review petition and dismiss it. We get the impression that the entire objective was to keep this review petition pending from 2016 onwards to see whether, based on such pendency, some advantages could be availed of before the authorities enjoined to administer the Tenancy Act. 12. For all the foregoing reasons, we dismiss this review petition without any order as to costs. Interlocutory applications, if any, will not survive and are disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 22.06.2026 N.A.F.R. APK/VK Uploaded on 25.06.2026