SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Pat) 1014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
S. KUMAR, J.
Ahmadulah Zafar Hasan - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar and Others - Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No.595 of 2019 and Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12417 of 2018
Decided On : 02-03-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Ratan Kumar Sinha.

Headnote:

Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 – Section 3 – Mutation – It is settled proposition of law that entry made in Khatiyan neither creates any title nor extinguishes any title – the Hon'ble Single Judge rightly observed appellant to take recourse to Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of his right, title and possession over the land in dispute – there being no infirmity in the impugned order, L.P.A. dismissed. (Paras 6 & 7)

JUDGMENT :

S. Kumar, J.

Heard the parties.

2. Aggrieved by judgment and order dated 18.04.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12417 of 2018 dismissing the writ petition in order to avail alternative remedy present L.P.A. has been filed by appellant/petitioner.

3. Appellant had filed writ petition for direction to the respondent authorities particularly Collector cum District Magistrate to comply the order dated 07.12.1987 passed by the Charge Officer (Settlement), Muzaffarpur passed in Misc. Case No. 22 of 1987.

4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case is that father of appellant purchased land, vide registered sale deed dated 27.02.1982 and came in possession over his purchased land and his name was mutated in revenue records and a Khatiyan was prepared in his name and accordingly his name was also recorded in Municipal Corporation, Muzaffarpur and holding tax is being paid by the appellant.

5. There was some dispute with Md. Abbas with respect to said land and his application for correction in the entry made in the Khatiyan was rejected by order dated 20.08.1986, however, it is alleged that said Md. Abbas with connivance of A.S.O. made certain correction in final published Khatiyan after final publication, for which father of appellant filed Miscellaneous case before the Charge Officer, Muzaffarpur, which remain inconclusive.

6. It is settled proposition of law that entry made in Khatiyan neither creates any title nor extinguishes any title, as such, the learned Single Judge has rightly observed appellant to take recourse to Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of his right, title and possession over the land in dispute.

7. This Court does not find any infirmity or error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge requiring any interference by the Court, accordingly, the L.P.A. is dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top