##PAGE1##

( 2026:JHHC:14395-DB )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Civil Review No. 11 of 2024

1. Sudarshan Prasad Sah, age about 74 years, son of Late Jagarnath Sah;

2. Prashant Kumar Rajesh, age about 69 years, son of Late Jagarnath Sah;

3. Rajendra Kumar age about 66 yrs. son of Late Jagarnath Sah; All residents

of village Aguiyabandh No. 71, S.C. P.O. Kharbani Pargadih, P.S.- Jama,

District- Dumka.

….. ….. Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, P.O. Dumka, P.S.-

Dumka, District- Dumka (Jharkhand).

3. The Settlement Officer, Dumka, P.O. Dumka, P.S.-Dumka, District-

Dumka (Jharkhand).

4. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Dumka, P.O. Dumka, P.S.-Dumka,

District- Dumka (Jharkhand).

5. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, P.O. Dumka, P.S.-Dumka, District-

Dumka (Jharkhand).

6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka, P.O. Dumka, P.S.- Dumka, District-

Dumka (Jharkhand).

7. The Circle Officer, Masalia, Dumka, P.O. Dumka, P.S.- Dumka, District-

Dumka (Jharkhand).

8. Mostt. Lakhia Devi wife of Late Lakhpati Singh;

9. Gnaesh Roy son of Late Lakhpati Singh;

10. Sudan Roy son of Late Lakhpati Singh;

11. Bhuwan Roy son of Late Lakhpati Singh;

12. Titu Roy son of Late Lakhpati Singh;

13. 16 Anna Raiyats of village Aguiyabandh;

All residents of village Aguiyabandh No. 71, S.C. P.O. Kharbani

Pargadih, P.S.- Jama, District- Dumka (Jharkhand).

… ... Respondents

------

CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

------

For the Petitioners : Mr Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate

Ms Rita Kumari, Advocate

Mr Om Prakash, Advocate

For the Resp.-State : Mr Ratnesh Kumar, SC(L&C)-I

For the Resp. Nos. 8 to 13 : Mr Indu Shekhar Gupta, Advocate

-----

06 /Dated: 12.05.2026

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This petition seeks review of the judgment and order dated 19.05.2023,

dismissing L.P.A. No. 212 of 2019.

1

( 2026:JHHC:14395-DB )

3. Mr Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the review petitioners,

submits that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, inasmuch as

the impugned order states that there was no specific prayer to challenge the

orders dated 19.02.2007 and 25.06.1987. He points out that in paragraph-6 of

the impugned order, the prayer clause has been quoted, and the quotation

clearly refers to the impugned orders of the learned Commissioner, Settlement

Officer and Assistant Settlement Officer as being prejudicial and that such

orders are fit to be quashed by this Court.

4. Mr Sharma, therefore, submits that the impugned order proceeds on the

premise that there was no specific prayer, when in fact, there was a specific

prayer. On this ground, he submits that there is an error apparent on the face

of the record, which is required to be corrected by exercising review

jurisdiction.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no case for

the exercise of review jurisdiction. They submit that the prayers are vague

and, in any event, the absence of prayers was not the only ground on which

the impugned order was made. They submit that the review petitioners have

raised factual issues, including adverse possession and the claim that Lakhpati

Singh is an impostor rather than the grandson of Lakhiya Devi. They submit

that such factual issues could never have been determined in a writ petition or

in an appeal against an order made in the writ petition. Accordingly, they

submit that there is no error, much less any error apparent on the face of the

record, warranting interference by exercising review jurisdiction.

6. The rival conventions now fall for our determination.

2

( 2026:JHHC:14395-DB )

7. The absence of specific prayer clauses is certainly not the sole ground

for dismissing the L.P.A. No. 212 of 2019. There are several other weightier

grounds in the impugned order justifying the dismissal of the Letters Patent

Appeal. There is no error insofar as such other grounds are concerned.

8. In paragraph-6, the prayer clause has been quoted. The prayer clause is

most confusing, and we