2026:JHHC:6003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5761 of 2022 ------- 1.Jarnegar Bibi, aged about-69 Years, W/o 1. Md. Farhad Ansari, R/o Village Kolhabadar, P.O.-Kolhabadar, P.S. Shikaripara, District- Dumka. 2. Abdul Rajjak, aged about-51 years S/o Md. Farhad Ansari, R/o Village Kolhabadar, P.O.-Kolhabadar, P.S. Shikaripara, District- Dumka. 3. Md. Sakur Ansari, aged about-49 years S/o Md. Farhad Ansari, , R/o Village Kolhabadar P.O.Kolhabadar, P.S.-Shikaripara, District- Dumka. …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, P.O., P.S. &District Dumka, Jharkhand. 3. The Charge Officer, Dumka, P.O., P.S. & District Dumka, Jharkhand. 4. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Dumka, P.O. & District P.S. Dumka, Dumka, Jharkhand. ……Respondents Ist party. 5. Abdul Aziz, aged about not known s/o late Sohrab Ali. 6. Matleb Ansari, aged about not known s/o Late Sohrab Ali. 7. Sadique Ansari, aged about not known s/o Late Sohrab Ali. Sl. No. 5 to 7 all are resident of Village Kolhabadar, P.O.- Kolhabadar, P.S. Shikaripara, District- Dumka.. .…..Respondents IInd party. 8. Abdul Jabbar, aged about not known S/o Late Rajan Mian, Resident of Village Kolhabadar, P.O.-Kolhabadar, P.S. Shikaripara, District Dumka.. …...Respondents IIIrd party. ------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Onkar Nath Tiwary, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Adv. ------- 09/Dated:04.02.2026 The grievance of the petitioners in the instant writ application is that though the appeal was decided in their favour by the Court of learned Settlement Officer; however, the Revisional Court has decided the case 2026:JHHC:6003 2 against the petitioners & others in spite of the fact that the father of the petitioner nos.2 & 3 and husband of the petitioner no.1, namely, Farhad Ansari, died during pendency of the revision proceedings and his legal heirs were not substituted by the respondent no.5-7. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioners are the widow and sons of the Farhad Ansari who died during the pendency of the R.M.R. Case No.61/2005-06. The husband of the petitioner no.1, Farhad Ansari, with dissatisfaction against the order filed an appeal before the court of settlement officer, Dumka which was numbered as Tanaza Appeal No.10/1996 which was transferred before the court of Charge Officer Dumka and the learned Charge Officer, Dumka after hearing the parties allowed the appeal and the name of Farhad Ansari was allowed. Thereafter, the concerned respondent nos.5 to 7 filed a R.M.R Case no.61/2004-05 before the respondent no.2 against the order dated 02.04.2004 passed in Tanaza Case No.10/1996. The respondent no.2 passed the order dated 30.05.2022 reversing the order passed by the settlement officer; hence, this writ application. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents; however, there is no specific denial as to 2026:JHHC:6003 3 the fact that the Farhad Ansari died during pendency of the revision application. However, Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents strenuously contended that on the one hand, no death certificate is produced before this Court regarding the death of Farhad Ansari; and on the other hand, Revisional Court decided the matter on merits and there is specific finding in the order that the opposite parties did not appear in the Court though they were served notices and merely on the ground of death of one of the opposite parties, the entire case should not be remitted (claiming as Karta). However, Ld. Sr. Counsel lastly submitted that even if the case is remitted to the concerned authority; he should ensure that right of the respondents may not be hampered. 4. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, the only grievance of the petitioners is that since their husband/father died during pendency of revisional case, as such they could not appear and they were not substituted. It is true that no death certificate was produced and there was no knowledge before the revisional court that any of the parties has died. 2026:JHHC:6003 4 However, it is a trite law that any order passed against a dead person is a nullity. 5. Accordingly, interest of justice would be sufficed by remitting this case to the revisional authority to pass a fresh order after hearing the legal heirs of the dead person, namely, Farhad Ansari, who was opposite party no.1. 6. Ordered accordingly. 7. Since the matter is very old, accordingly, the Revisional Court is requested to proceed in the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and after following due procedure. 8. As a result, order of the Revision Commissioner passed in R.M.R. No.61/2004 dated 30.05.2022, is hereby, quashed and set aside without going into merit of the case. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A.s if any, also closed. Interim stay, if any, is also vacated. (Deepak Roshan, J.) February 04, 2026 Uploaded on 12/03/2026 Fahim/-