(2026:JHHC:8942-DB ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 105 of 2024 1. Sidhinath Pandey, aged about 81 years, 2. Dharamdeo Pandey, aged about 76 years, both sons of Late Samol Pandey, residents of Village & PO: Pandu, P.S. Bishrampur (now Pandu), District- Palamau ... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Commissioner, Palamau Division, PO & PS: Daltonganj, District- Palamau 3. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Settlement Officer, Medininagar, PO & PS: Daltonganj, District- Palamau 4. Charge Officer-I, Settlement Office, Medininagar, PO & PS: Daltonganj, District- Palamau 5. Assistant Settlement Officer, Medininagar, PO & PS: Daltonganj, District- Palamau 6. Additional Collector, Medininagar, PO & PS: Daltonganj, District- Palamau 7. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Medininagar, PO & PS: Daltonganj, District- Palamau 8. Circle Officer, Bishrampur, PO & PS: Bishrampur (now Pandu), District-Palamau 9. Rajpatiya Devi, widow of Late Rattu Mahto 10. Nagendra Mahto, 11. Guddu Mahto @ Lalendra Mahto, both sons of Late Rattu Mahto 9 to 11 are residents of Village- Pandu, Tola Burikhar, PO & PS: Pandu, District- Palamau 12. Sushila Devi, daughter of Late Rattu Mahto, wife of Yugal Mahto, resident of Village- Bhatwalia, PO & PS: Pandu, District Palamau 13. Rampati Kuar, widow of Late Bhagwanbali Mahto 14. Hariduar Mahto, 15. Lavkush Mahto, 16. Bikarma Mahto, 14 to 16 are sons of Late Bhagwanbali Mahto 13 to 16 are residents of Village- Pandu, Tola Burikhar, PO & PS: Pandu, District- Palamau 17. Rita Devi, wife of Bigan Mahto and daughter of Late Bhagwanbal Mahto, resident of Jharnava, PO: Danta, PS & District- Garhwa 18. Anita Devi, wife of Bishesh Kumar Mahto and daughter of Late Bhagwanbali Mahto, resident of Village- Chapia, PO: Kutmu, PS: Pandu, District- Palamau (2026:JHHC:8942-DB ) 2 19. Janeshwar Mahto, son of Late Prabhu Mahto, resident of Village & PO: Pandu, Tola Burikhar, PS: Bishrampur (now Pandu), District- Palamau ... Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioners: Mr Anand Kumar Pandey , Advocate For the O.P. State: Mr Ratnesh Kumar, S.C (L&C)-I Mr Rakesh Kumar Shahi, AC to SC(L&C)-1 --------- Order No. 03/Dated: 30.03.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. I.A. No. 10611 of 2024 seeks condonation of the delay of 507 days in preferring a review petition against the judgment and order dated 31.01.2023. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has taken us through the I.A., and he submits that the reasons set out therein constitute sufficient cause for the condonation of the 507-day delay. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the review petition, although filed after a delay of 507 days, was lodged when the two learned Judges who issued the judgment and order dated 31.01.2023 were available. If this is true, we fail to understand why this application and the review petition were not filed urgently. 5. Learned counsel for the review petitioners explains that there were defects and clearing them took time. This is something we cannot agree with. 6. The statement that the same Bench was available does not appear to be accurate, as by July 2024 at least one of the learned Judges (2026:JHHC:8942-DB ) 3 was unavailable. Incidentally, this Judge was the Senior Judge of the Bench who was transferred with effect from 04.07.2024. 7. This means that the statement made is incorrect and that the review petition was filed much later, i.e., on 19.08.2024, after seeking condonation of a delay of 507 days. 8. Besides, we cannot understand why the objections were not addressed when the second learned Judge, who was part of the Bench that issued the order dated 31.01.2023, was available. On one hand, the applicants claimed serious prejudice; on the other hand, the appeal was filed after a significant delay. Even after the appeal was filed, the objections were not promptly cleared, preventing the review from being taken up, especially since at least one of the Judges involved in the judgment and order dated 31.01.2023 was still available. 9. That apart, the only reason set out in the application for condonation of delay is that the petitioners are aged 81 years and 76 years respectively. There is a vague statement that after they came to Ranchi on 12.04.2024, i.e. more than a year after which the judgment and order dated 31.01.2023 was pronounced, the first appellant fell ill and therefore, could not contact the counsel. Such contact was possible only on 02.05.2024. There is then yet another vague statement about returning to the village to collect funds for filing a review petition. 10. Now, based on such vague, completely unverifiable statements, this delay of 507 days ininstituting the review petition cannot be condoned. 11. For the above reasons, we dismiss I.A. No. 10611 of 2024. (2026:JHHC:8942-DB ) 4 12. Consequently, the accompanying review petition does not survive and is disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) March 30, 2026 N.A.F.R. Ranjeet/Cp.2 Uploaded on 01.04.2026