2026:JHHC:26751 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1698 of 2022 ------- Sujata Jha @ Sujata Devi, Aged about 52 years, Wife of Late Krishna Kant Jha, Resident of Village Barhet Bazaar, P.O. & P.S. Barhet, District - Sahibganj (Jharkhand). …………Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Revenue Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, Distt. Ranchi. 2. Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, P.O., P.S. and Distt. Dumka. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, P.O., P.S. & Distt. Sahibganj. 4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Sahibganj, P.O., P.S. & Distt. Sahibganj. 5.Ashok Kumar Jha, S/o. Late Rachindra Jha 6.Vinod Kumar Jha, S/o. Late Rachindra Jha 7. Rashma Thakur, D/o. Late Rachindra Jha 8. Khusbu Kumari, D/o. Late Rachindra Jha Respondent no. 5 to 8 all Resident of Village Barhet Bazaar, P.O. & P.S. Barhet, District –Sahibganj (Jharkhand).... Respondents CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur, Advocate For the State : Mr. Baibhaw Gahlot, AC to AAG-V For the Respondent No.5: Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate ------ 09/31.08.2026: By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- “a. For quashing the order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in R.M.R. Case No. 217/2015-16 (Annexure 4) whereby and whereunder the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj dated 02.02.2016 in R.M.A. Case No. 05/2013- 14 and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sahibganj dated 06.09.2013 passed in R. E. Case No. 26/2011-12, has been set aside ex-parte without hearing the petitioner in the most arbitrary and illegal manner and the same is perverse on account of non-application of judicial mind and against the provisions of the prevailing law of the land i.e. Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act. b. Commanding upon the respondent authorities to make suitable corrections in the revenue registers after giving effect to the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj dated 02.02.2016 in R.M.A. Case No. 05/2013-14 and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sahibganj dated 06.09.2013 passed in R. E. Case No. 26/2011-12. c. During pendency of the instant writ application, stay the operation and execution of the order impugned.” 2026:JHHC:26751 2 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the land comprised in Jamabandi No. 309, Daag No. 564, measuring 8 kattha at Barhet, Sahibganj, originally stood in the name of her father-in-law, Late Umesh Jha. Pursuant to a family partition, she claims to have received and possessed a portion of the said land (3 Katha 71/2Dhurs) and house. After her husband's death, she stayed at her maternal home, entrusting the private respondents with care of the property, but upon returning in 2006, they allegedly prevented her from entering the house and claimed that she had sold the property by an affidavit. She thereafter filed Eviction Case being R.E. Case No. 26/2011-12 before the S.D.O., Sahibganj, which was allowed on 06.09.2013 directing eviction of the private respondents under Section 42 and 20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act. The appeal filed by Sachindra Jha being R.M.A Case No. 05/2013-14 was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner on 02.02.2016. Subsequently, being aggrieved the petitioners filed Revision before the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka being R.M.R. Case No. 217/2015-16, who by order dated 24.10.2019 set aside both orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj in R.M.A Case No. 05/2013-14 and the S.D.O., Sahibganjin the Eviction Case No. 26/2011 and remanded the matter to the S.D.O. for fresh consideration. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the said order. 3. The learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the disputed land was originally recorded in the name of Late Umesh Jha, father-in-law of the petitioner. Pursuant to family partition, she received and possessed a portion of the land in question and house. The private respondents are in unauthorised possession thereof. It is submitted that the S.D.O., Sahibganj, after enquiry, passed the order dated 06.09.2013 in R.E. Case No. 26/2011-12 directing eviction under Sections 42 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949 on the ground that the land being Gairmazarua Anabadi land in nature and non- 2026:JHHC:26751 3 transferable under Section 20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, which was affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner on 02.02.2016. The petitioner contends that the Commissioner, by in an ex-parte order dated 24.10.2019, set-aside the concurrent orders and remanded the matter without properly considering the petitioner’s case and documents. It is further submitted that under Section 20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, the land being settlement/non-saleable land, no valid right could have been created in favour of the private respondents on the basis of the alleged affidavit. The petitioner therefore seeks quashing of the Commissioner’s order and restoration of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and Deputy Commissioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that the Commissioner rightly interfered with the orders of the authorities below, as the question of actual possession and the documents produced by the private respondents had not been properly examined. It is submitted that Late Umesh Jha had obtained settlement of the land and, after partition amongst his four sons, the petitioner’s husband was allotted 3 Katha 6 Dhurs. The petitioner thereafter agreed to sell the said land to the mother of the private respondents and executed a document dated 17.02.2002 acknowledging receipt of Rs.65,001/- and permitting the respondents to take possession, with an undertaking to facilitate obtaining the requisite sale permission. The private respondents thereafter constructed a double-storied pucca house and remained in possession. It is therefore contended that the S.D.O. and the Appellate Authority failed to properly consider the documents and possession of the private respondents. The Commissioner accordingly righty set-aside the earlier orders and remanded the matter to the S.D.O. for fresh enquiry into possession and consideration of the documents. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the Commissioner’s order dated 24.10.2019 merely set-aside the earlier 2026:JHHC:26751 4 orders and remanded the matter to the S.D.O. for determining possession after examining the relevant documents. It is submitted that the Deputy Commissioner had affirmed the S.D.O.’s order, but the Commissioner found that the issue of possession had not been adequately examined. The respondent-State supported the impugned order which directed for fresh consideration of the matter by the competent revenue authority in accordance with law. 6. After hearing the parties and perusing the materials on record, I find that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Sahibganj, after considering case of the parties rejected the case holding that the opposite party (father of the private respondents) has no connection with the applicant or her family. He claims to have purchased the land and is requesting the applicant for registration or permission, even though under Section 20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, the land is non-transferable. He has not presented any evidence or documents in support of his claim. In such circumstances, the defendant's claim that the land in question was purchased by him is false. The said order was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner in R.M.A. Case No.05 of 2013-14, who, by a reasoned order dated 02.02.2016, affirmed the findings of the Sub-Divisional Officer. 7. The Commissioner, while exercising revisional jurisdiction in R.M.R. Case No. 217 of 2015-16, revisited the factual aspect of matter proceeded ex-parte to record a finding that both the Court below had passed the order without enquired the possession of the disputed land, and consequently set-aside the orders and remanded the matter back to Sub-Divisional Officer, Sahibganj for deciding afresh. 8. It is well settled that a Revisional Authority is not vested with the powers of a regular Appellate Court. Unless the statute expressly confers such jurisdiction, the Revisional Authority cannot undertake a de novo appreciation of evidence, reassess disputed questions of fact, or substitute its own factual conclusions merely because another view 2026:JHHC:26751 5 is possible. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is confined to examining the legality, propriety and jurisdictional correctness of the orders under challenge. It is not open to the Revisional Authority to convert itself into a court of first appeal. 9. In the case of “Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. versus Dilbahar Singh” reported in (2014) 9 SCC 78, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “28. ...... Both, appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction are creatures of statutes. No party to the proceeding has an inherent right of appeal or revision. An appeal is continuation of suit or original proceeding, as the case may be. The power of the appellate court is coextensive with that of the trial court. Ordinarily, appellate jurisdiction involves rehearing on facts and law but such jurisdiction may be limited by the statute itself that provides for the appellate jurisdiction. On the other hand, revisional jurisdiction, though, is a part of appellate jurisdiction but ordinarily it cannot be equated with that of a full-fledged appeal. In other words, revision is not continuation of suit or of original proceeding. When the aid of Revisional Court is invoked on the revisional side, it can interfere within the permissible parameters provided in the statute. It goes without saying that if a revision is provided against an order passed by the Tribunal/appellate authority, the decision of the Revisional Court is the operative decision in law. In our view, as regards the extent of appellate or revisional jurisdiction, much would, however, depend on the language employed by the statute conferring appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction.” 10. Considering the aforesaid judicial pronouncement and the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two competent authorities, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in R.M.R. Case No. 217 of 2015-16 suffers from patent jurisdictional error. In the absence of any finding that the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Deputy Commissioner suffered from perversity, jurisdictional error or misapplication of law, the Commissioner was not justified in reopening the matter and directing a fresh enquiry. Further the lands are not transferable and an affidavit cannot be an instrument to transfer ownership of land. 2026:JHHC:26751 6 11. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds. The judgment and order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in R.M.R. Case No. 217 of 2015-16 is hereby quashed and set aside. The orders dated 06.09.2013 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer in R.E. Case No.26 of 2011-12 and order dated 02.02.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in R.M.A. Case No.05 of 2013-14 stand restored. 12. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. 13. Pending I.A. if any shall stand disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 31.08.2026 Tanuj/CP-2 Uploaded on 07.09.2026