Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 142 (JHR)

Umesh Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

2025-01-21

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.09.2023 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 2 – the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand in Revision Case No. 26/2012, whereby the restoration application dated 31.08.2022 filed by the petitioners seeking restoration of the said case which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 22.07.2015, has been rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the content of the writ petition. 3. Revision Case No. 26/2012 was filed by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue, Jharkhand challenging the order dated 04.02.2013 passed by the respondent no. 3 – the Additional Collector, Giridih in Land Ceiling Appeal Case No. 04/2009-10, whereby the order dated 27.02.2009 passed by the respondent no.4 – the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih was set-aside. 4. On perusal of the record, it appears that no one had been appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Revision Case No. 26/2012 after filing of the same on 24.11.2012. Under the said circumstance, the respondent no. 2 dismissed the said revision for non-prosecution on 22.07.2015. Subsequently, an application seeking restoration of Revision Case No. 26/2012 was filed on 31.08.2022 i.e., after lapse of more than 7 years from the date of dismissal of the revision petition. The respondent no. 2 having found no justified ground for restoration of the said revision, dismissed the said application of the petitioners vide impugned order dated 15.09.2023. 5. Though the respondent no. 2 in the impugned order dated 15.09.2023 has also discussed the merit of the case, however, he has finally declined to condone such a huge delay in filing the said application. It has also been recorded in paragraph no. 2 of the impugned order dated 15.09.2023 that the defect lying in the said revision petition was never removed by the counsel for the petitioners in spite of order of the respondent no. 2. 6. Considering the reasons mentioned in the order dated 15.09.2023 and since it is an admitted position that the restoration application was filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking restoration of Revision Case No. 26/2012 after more than 7 years without cogent explanation for committing such a huge delay, I see no infirmity in the said order passed by the respondent no. 2. 2. Though the petitioners have annexed few copies of prescriptions and pathological test reports, however, the same cannot be said to be sufficient reason on the part of the petitioners so as not to pursue the said revision petition for considerably long period as well as committing huge delay of more than 7 years in preferring the application seeking its restoration. 7. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.