Jharkhand High Court
Md. Usman Ansari @ Md. Usman vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 January, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2026:JHHC:681
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.3691 of 2011
-----
Md. Usman Ansari @ Md. Usman, son of Late Bandhu Mian, Village Lohsinghna, Sondiha, P.O. & P.S. Bashistha Nagar (Jori), District Chatra.
.......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Additional Collector, Chatra.
3. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra.
4. Circle Officer, Hunterganj.
5. Most. Dahiya Devi, wife of Late Hari Sao.
6. Bijay Sao, son of Late Hari Sao.
7. Binod Sao, son of Late Hari Sao.
8. Ajay Sao, son of Late Hari Sao.
9. Munna Sao, son of Late Hari Sao.
10. Anil Sao, son of Late Hari Sao.
11. Md. Islam Ansari, son of Late Bandhu Mian.
12. Md. Nizam Ansari, son of Late Bandhu Mian.
13. Md. Azim Ansari, son of Late Bandhu Mian.
14. Abdul Rauf, son of Late Rasique Mian.
15. Md. Rashid, son of Late Rasique Mian.
16. Md. Khalid, son of Late Rasique Mian.
Nos.5 to 16 residents of Village Lohsinghna, P.O. & P.S. Bashistha Nagar (Jori), District Chatra.
.......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra,
AC to AAG-II, Advocate
For Private Respondents: Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate
-----
Order No.07 Date: 12.01.2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 3rd June, 2010 passed by the Additional Collector, Chatra- respondent No.2 in Mutation Revision No.41 of 2009, whereby the revision filed by Hari Sao (since deceased) has been allowed by setting aside the order dated 10th September, 2009 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra- respondent No.3 in Mutation Appeal No.81 of 2008-09.
1
2026:JHHC:681
2. It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the 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 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, 2 2026:JHHC:681 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 3rd June, 2010 has been passed by the Additional Collector, Chatra in Mutation Revision No.41 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 parties as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from the date of this order.
6. The records of Mutation Revision No.41 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.) 12th January, 2026 Sanjay/ Uploaded on 13.01.2026 3