2026:JHHC:10841 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 1282 of 2023 ------- 1.Md. Hadis Ansari, aged about 80 years, s/o Md Kalimuddin Ansari, r/o Sariyahat, PO+PS Sariyahat, District Dumka 2. Md. Jalil Ansari, aged about 75 years, s/o Md Kalimuddin Ansari, r/o Sariyahat, PO+PS Sariyahat, District Dumka 3.Md. Karim Ansari, aged about 47 years, s/o Md Hamid Ansari, r/o Sariyahat, PO+PS Sariyahat, District Dumka, 4. Md. Khurshid Ansari, aged about 59 years, s/o Md. Kalimuddin Ansari, r/o r/o Sariyahat, PO+PS Sariyahat, District Dumka .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mabud Mandal, s/o Late Hajra Bibi, r/o Village Babudih, PO Chilra, PS Sariyhat, District Dumka, 3. Kasim Modal, s/o Late Hajra Bibi, r/o Village Babudih, PO Chilra PS Sariyhat, District Dumka. 4. Gaya Mondal, s/o Late Hajra Bibi, r/o Village Babudih, PO Chilra, PS Sariyhat, District Dumka. 5. Mumtaaz Ansari, s/o Samiruddin Mandal, r/o Village Babudih, PO Chilra, PS Sariyhat, District Dumka. 6. Khatiza Bibi, s/o Jaddo Mian, r/o Village Baka Balarpur, PS Baka, PO Kunaini, District Baka, Bihar … Respondents. ------- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, SC-I Mr. Ankit Kumar, AC to SC-I Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ritesh Kumar, advocate Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate Ms. Rita Kumari, Advocate ------ 09/ 16.04.2026: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners have challenged the final order dated 17.06.2022 passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division at Dumka in Review Application, which arose out of Title Appeal No.24 of 1988 between the parties. Further, prayer has been made to direct the Commissioner, Santhal Paargana Division, Dumka to hear the review application afresh. 3. It is the only grievance of the petitioners that without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the review application was allowed and the order dated 11.06.2012 (wrongly typed in the impugned order as 11.06.2022) passed in the Second Appeal has been set aside. 4. Without going into the merits of the case, I am only dealing with the procedure which has been followed by the Commissioner while disposing of the review application. 5. The review application has been filed by the private respondents herein, who were the respondents in Title Appeal No.24 of 1988. After the final order was passed in Title Appeal No.24 of 1988, Rasul Mandal & Others filed a review petition. The said review application was filed on 31.07.2012, which is apparent from the original record, which has been produced. After 31.07.2012, the review application was listed on 09.11.2012. It is pertinent to mention that no notice was issued to the petitioners herein, who were the opposite parties. Thereafter, on several dates, no proceedings were conducted. The order-sheet only mentions that the appellants were either represented or were absent. Ultimately, the case was listed on 24.06.2022 when the Commissioner recorded that both the parties are absent. It was further recorded that the first party was also absent but the opposite party was present during hearing. It was further ordered that three days’ time was given to the file written statement. The next date mentioned in the order-sheet is 17.06.2022 which records that a final order is passed in the review petition. The final order is in separate sheets. 6. When three days’ time was given to the respondents (petitioners herein) to file their written statement on 14.06.2022, how the final order was passed on 17.06.2022, is not understood. Further, the entire order-sheet suggests that at no point of time, any hearing was done in this entire case. 7. Thus, the procedure adopted by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka is not only arbitrary but also violates the principles of natural justice. Thus, the impugned order dated 17.06.2022 passed in Review Petition by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka is hereby set aside. 8. The review application is remitted back to the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka for deciding it afresh. Both the parties are directed to appear along with a copy of this order before the Commissioner on or -2- before 04.05.2026. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka will fix a date of hearing and will allow the parties to file their respective pleadings, and thereafter, dispose the Review Application after hearing both the parties as expeditiously as possible. 9. The original records be handed over to the learned counsel for the State so that the same can be immediately transmitted to the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is hereby allowed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 16th April, 2026 Madhav/- Uploaded on:18/04/2026 -3-