2026:JHHC:25269 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6219 of 2026 Naro Mahto, son of late Jeetan Mahto, by faith Hindu, by occupation cultivation, resident of village Pakrar, P.O.& P.S. Katkamsandi, District Hazaribag, Jharkhand. …Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Talo Mahto, son of Pulu Mahto 2. Balo Mahto, son of Late Jeetan Mahto Both are by faith Hindu, by occupation cultivation, residents of village- Pakrar, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. ... Respondent(s) CORAM: SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Choudhary, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : None …...... 2/17.08.2026: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: - (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s), particularly in the nature of certiorari for quashing/setting aside the order dated 10.07.2026 passed in Restoration Petition No.08/2010 filed on 20.08.2025 in Pre-Emption Revision No. 08/2010 by Sri Mast Ram Meena, the learned Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand whereby and where under the petition dated 20.08.2025 for Restoration of Pre-Emption Revision No. 08/2010-11 filed in this court on 20.08.2025 under section 151 of Civil Procedure Code ,1908 by the original petitioner namely Naro Mahto which was dismissed for Non- Prosecution on 25.06.2010 by this Court, has been dismissed, which is illegal. (ii) And further prays for restoration of the Original Revision Case No. 08/2010 to its original form which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 25.06.2010 by this Court, under the facts and circumstances of the case for the ends of justice. 2. Considering the reliefs sought by the petitioner and the impugned order, I find that it is not necessary to call for the response of the respondents here in the present case. 3. It is case of the petitioner that the petitioner claims to be a co- sharer in respect of land situated at Village Pakrar, P.S. Katkamsandi, District Hazaribagh, bearing P.S. No. 62, Khata No. 154, Plot No. 633, area 1 decimal. 2026:JHHC:25269 2 The land was transferred by Balo Mahto, (the co-sharer/transferor) to the present respondents. The petitioner filed Pre-emption Case No. 07 of 2007-08 under Section 16(3)(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, before the L.R.D.C., Sadar, Hazaribagh. By order dated 06.02.2008, the L.R.D.C. allowed the petitioner’s pre-emption application and directed the concerned respondent (Respondent no. 1) to transfer the disputed land in favour of the petitioner within 30 days. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred Pre-emption Appeal No. 03 of 2008 before the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh. By order dated 23.07.2009, the learned Additional Collector allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 06.02.2008 passed by the L.R.D.C. The petitioner, thereafter, filed revision being Pre-emption Revision No.08 of 2010 which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 25.06.2010. Again, the petitioner filed Restoration Petition No.08 of 2010 to restore the revision petition but the same was dismissed by order dated 10.07.2026. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel on behalf of petitioner contended that the petitioner is an illiterate villager and was under the impression that the revision being Pre-emption Revision No.08 of 2010 was still pending but the same was dismissed for non-prosecution. Further, the Restoration Petition No.08 of 2010 to restore the revision petition was also dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and the court has not believed the stand of the petitioner. Thus, it is prayed by the petitioner that the Restoration Petition No.08 of 2010 may be allowed and the original Pre-emption Revision No.08 of 2010 may be restored. 5. After perusal of the records, I find that the Original Revision Case no. 08 of 2010 was dismissed for non- prosecution on 25.06.2010, the petitioner was sitting silent for 15 years from the date of dismissal of the same and has filed the restoration only petition on 20.08.2025. This clearly shows that there is intentional delay, latches and lapses on the part of this petitioner. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108 as under: “16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear 2026:JHHC:25269 3 in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant — a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.” 7. Considering the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the fact of the case, I find no merit in this writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 17th August, 2026 Anu/-Cp2. Uploaded on: 24/08/2026