Jharkhand High Court
Ram Dhani Rajak vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 13 January, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2026:JHHC:836
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 7280 of 2011
---
Ram Dhani Rajak, son of Late Raman Rajak, resident of Village Lohsinghna, P.O. & P.S.- Bashisth Nagar (Jori), Hunterganj, District-
Chatra ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Additional Collector, Chatra
3. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra
4. The Circle Officer, Hunterganj, District- Chatra
5. Most. Duhiya Devi, wife of Late Hari Sao
6. Bijay Sao
7. Binod Sao
8. Ajay Sao
9. Munna Sao
10. Anil Sao Respondent nos. 6 to 10 are sons of Late Hari Sao, respondent nos. 5 to 10 are residents of Village Lohsinghna, P.O. & P.S.- Bashisth Nagar (Jori), District- Chatra
11. Girja Rajak
12. Anil Rajak Both are sons of Late Faguni Rajak
13. Deepak Rajak
14. Jitendra Rajak
15. Chhotu Rajak Respondent nos. 13 to 15 are sons of Late Kedar Rajak
16. Krishna Rajak, son of Late Jamuna Rajak Respondent nos. 11 to 16 are residents of Village Lohsinghna, P.O. & P.S.- Bashisth Nagar (Jori), District- Chatra .... ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Binit Chandra, A.C. to A.A.G.-III Order No. 05 Dated: 13.01.2026 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 03.06.2010 (Anneuxre-2 to the writ petition) passed by the Additional Collector, Chatra (the respondent no. 2) in Mutation Revision No. 38 of 2009, whereby the revision filed by Hari Sao (since deceased) has been allowed by setting aside the order dated 10.09.2009 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra (the respondent no.3) in Mutation Appeal No. 82 of 2008-09.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the 1 2026:JHHC:836 issue as to whether the Additional Collector has any power of entertaining the revision under Section 16 of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act, 1973') is no more res integra, as the same has been decided by this Court in the case of Mahabir Prasad Jain & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand, reported in 2018(2) JLJR 57, holding, inter alia, that the Additional Collector has no power of entertaining the revision under the said provision of the Act, 1973 unless the said authority is specifically empowered by the State Government to act as a Collector by issuing a notification.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that the aforesaid issue as raised in the present writ petition has been set at rest by this Court in the case of Mahabir Prasad Jain (Supra.), it would be appropriate to quote relevant part of the same, which reads as under:-
"13. After going through Section 16 of the Act, 1973 as well as the aforesaid judgments, I am of the considered view that the Additional Collector has no power of revision under the provision of the Act, 1973, unless by a notification, Additional Collector is specifically empowered by the State Government to act as a Collector. So far as the order dated 12.05.2000 passed by a Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2733 of 1999(R) [Badri Prasad Modi Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.] is concerned, in that case, it was observed that the Government of Bihar, Revenue Department time to time issued instructions regarding mutation which inter alia provided that the parties may file revision before the Collector or the Additional Collector of the district. However, in the present case, no notification under Section 2(c) of the Act, 1973 empowering the Additional Collector or any other officer to exercise power of revision under Section 16 of the Act was either available before the 2 2026:JHHC:836 respondent no.3 while passing the impugned order dated 14.10.2006 or any such notification has been produced by the learned counsel of the State in course of hearing of this case. Thus, in absence of any notification issued under Section 2(c) of the Act, the power exercised by the respondent no.3 - Additional Collector, Koderma as a revisional authority is without jurisdiction and the same cannot be legally sustained."
4. Section 16 of the Act, 1973 confers power only to the Collector of the district to entertain a revision. In the present case also, no notification under Section 2(c) of the Act, 1973 has been brought on record so as to suggest that the Additional Collector or any other officer has been empowered to exercise jurisdiction of revision under Section 16 of the Act, 1973.
5. Since the impugned order dated 03.06.2010 has been passed by the Additional Collector, Chatra in Mutation Revision No. 38 of 2009, who did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the revision, the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Collector, Chatra to pass a fresh order on merit after hearing the concerned parties as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from the date of this order.
6. The records of Mutation Revision No. 38 of 2009 shall forthwith be transferred from the office of the Additional Collector, Chatra to the office of the Collector, Chatra.
7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) January 13, 2026 Ritesh/ Uploaded on 14.01.2026 3