( 2026:JHHC:11755 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(C) No. 3302 of 2013 1. Lakhan Das 2. Bhikhan Das both S/o Late Huro Mahra 3. Kapil Das S/o Late Manku Mahra All residents of village- Machhuatanr within Madhupur, P.O & P.S- Madhupur, District-Deoghar, Jharkhand … Petitioners -Versus- 1. Md. Tahir S/o Late Md. Abbas 2. Mostt. Likhari Bibi W/o Late Md. Abbas (died) 3. Salomen Bibi D/o Late Sahi Mian (died) 4. Gulam Rasul S/o Late Samar Ali Mian(substituted vide order 25.8.22) i) Md. Hussain Mian, S/o Late Gulam Rasul ii) Masuluddin, S/o Late Gulam Rasul Both resident of House No. 29, Madhupur, District-Deoghar, Jharkhand 5. State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Land & Revenue, Govt. of Jharkhand 6. The Commissioner SP Division, Dumka, P.O & P.S Dumka, District Dumka 7. The Settlement Officer S.P Division, Dumka, P.O & P.S Dumka. … Opposite Parties ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate For the Intervenors : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Resp.(State) : Mr. Shubham Gautam, AC to AAG V For the Respondents 4(i)&(ii) : Mr. Ramakant Tiwari, Advocate : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh, Advocate ----- 16/21.04.2026 Heard Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. A.K. Sahani learned counsel for the intervenors, Mr. Shubham Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the State who are respondent Nos. 5 to 7. Mr. Ramakant Tiwari, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and substituted legal heir of respondent nos. 2,3. 2. This petition has been filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 04.04.2013 passed by the learned Commissioner Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in Misc. Revision No. 446 of 2011-12. The challenge is also made for quashing order dated 13.01.2012 passed by Settlement Officer, Dumka in T.L Case No. 11 of 2011. ( 2026:JHHC:11755 ) 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Jamabandi No. 14 of the Tithiya Bank Mouza No. 262 talague Pathrol, S.C. P.S & Sub-division Deoghar stands recorded in the name of Guhi Mian and others in the last survey settlement commonly known as Gantzer settlement. He next submits that after last settlement the recorded tenant Guhi Mian & others left the village Tithiya bank forever and abandoned their holding and as such the same after the lapse of considerable period the jote no. 14 of Mouza Tighiyabank became Fouti Ferari and barren land. He also submits that one Pradeep Pd. Yadav, son of late Mahabir Yadav resident of village Tithiyabank applied to the Sub-Divisional Officer Deoghar, for settlement of same land jote no. 14 of mouza Tithiyabank being Settlement Case No. 25 of 1953-54. After issuing notices to the necessary parties and due inquiry declared the J.B. No. 14 of mouza Tithiyabank as Fouti and settled the said by, the order dated 18.01.1954 with Rajo Mahra a poor harizan having small jama of Re.1/- only for ever and let him Basagari who was ancestor of these petitioners. He submits that after passing the order dated 08.01.1954, the said Pradeep Prasad Yadav preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Paragana Dumka, which was registered as Revenue Misc Appeal No. 454 of 1953-54. He also submits that Mohd. Abbas also preferred an appeal before the learned Deputy Commissioner against the said order dated 08.01.1954 of the settlement with Rajo Mahra which was registered as Revenue Misc Appeal No. 457 of 1953-54 ie. Mohd. Abbas V/s Rajo Mahra. He next submit that vide order dated 22.11.1954, both these appeals were dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka. Thereafter, Md. Abbas filed a petition for restoration of the appeal but the same was also rejected on 05.05.1955. He submits that Rajo Mahra, the settlee took ( 2026:JHHC:11755 ) 3 delivery of possession of the aforesaid Jote No. 14 of mouza Tithiyabank through the process of the Court on 22.06.1956 in Misc. Case No. 62 of 1956-57, thus the matter becomes final and conclusive. He also submits that Mohd. Hussain, son of Gulam Rasool of mouza Uddaypur filed an application before the then learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar against Huro Mahra & others for their eviction under section 42 of the SPT Act 1949 where it was registered as R.M. Case No. 19 of 1991-92 and then learned SDO, Deoghar vide order dated 26.04.1996 was pleased to dismiss his application and did not evict Huro Mahra& others. He submits that thereafter, the rent receipts were regularly issued in favour of Rajo Mahra and on his death, it was issued in favour of his son Huro Mahra and Manku Mahra contained in Annexure-3 of the writ petition. He submits that all of a sudden thereafter, Mohd. Tahir has filed the T.L Case No. 11 of 2011 for evicting the writ petitioners herein on 05.01.2012. By the order dated 13.01.2012, itself the said petition was allowed in favour of private respondent Mohd. Tahir. The said order was challenged before the learned Commissioner Santhal Pargana Division in R.M.R. No. 446 of 2011-12 which was dismissed affirming the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Dumka in T.L Case No. 11 of 2011. 4. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that these two impugned orders are cryptic and the same have been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing. The Settlement Officer has passed the order on 13.01.2012 and that too on the very next date of filing of the case. He submits that the learned Commissioner also without providing any opportunity and cogent reasons has dismissed the revision petition saying that no document in support of settlement has been filed before the Settlement Officer. On these grounds these orders may kindly be set aside. ( 2026:JHHC:11755 ) 4 5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that the learned authority has rightly passed the orders, they are having the jurisdiction under the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act and no document was filed, in view of that these two orders have been passed and there is no illegality in it. 6. On the enquiry made by the Court to the learned counsel appearing for the State, he submits that vide order dated 13.01.2012, it transpires that hearing was not provided to either of the parties. 7. Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and legal heir successors of respondent nos. 2 and 3 also opposed the prayer and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order, as such the writ petition may kindly be dismissed. 8. In view of the above facts and submissions by the learned counsels for the parties, the Court has perused the impugned order. T.L Case No. 11 of 2011. The said case was instituted on 05.01.2012 and next date was fixed on 13.01.2012, and on that very date, the said case was allowed, and from order it transpires that no hearing was provided to either of the parties. The said order was affirmed by the learned Commissioner in R.M.R. No. 446 of 2011-12 saying that no document was filed before the Settlement Officer and the same R.M.R. No. 446 of 2011-12 was also dismissed. 9. The learned Commissioner has also affirmed the order passed in T.L. Case No. 11 of 2011 only saying that no document was filed before the Settlement Officer. The submission and findings and other facts are not noted in the said order. In view of the above, it is crystal clear that without providing any ( 2026:JHHC:11755 ) 5 opportunity on the very next date of the filing of the case the Settlement Officer passed the order, which has been affirmed by the learned Commissioner. 10. It is well-settled that in passing of any order the parties are required to be provided an opportunity to be heard, which has not been followed while passing the impugned order, as such the impugned orders dated 13.01.2012 passed by Sub-Divisional Office, Settlement Officer, as well as order dated 04.04.2013 passed by the learned Commissioner passed by the learned Commissioner, S.P. Division, Dumka in Misc Revision (R.M.R) No. 446 of 2011-12 are hereby set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the Settlement Officer, Dumka restoring the T.L Case No. 11 of 2011 to its original file. 11. The Settlement Officer, Dumka will the decide the same afresh, after providing due opportunities to all the sides. 12. The petitioners and the private respondents shall appear before the Settlement Officer, Dumka on 11th May, 2026, and thereafter, the settlement officer will proceed in accordance with law. 13. This writ petition is allowed in above terms and disposed of. 14. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Abha / Dated 21st April, 2026