Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ANSHUMAN
Sunil Kumar Singh alias Sunil Singh S/o Baij Nath Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Revenue Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DR. ANSHUMAN, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the private respondent.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing Letter No. 327-2, dated 10.05.2019, issued by the Circle Officer, Pratapganj (Annexure-1), whereby the Circle Officer has cancelled the Jamabandi of the petitioners in respect of the land in question, allegedly in collusion with the private respondent, on the pretext of compliance of the order dated 21.01.2019 passed in CWJC No. 12103 of 2016 (Bhupendra Lal Das v. The State of Bihar & Ors.) by this Hon’ble Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had filed B.L.D.R. Case No. 13 of 2012 before the Court of D.C.L.R., Birpur, which was allowed in their favour on 19.04.2012. Counsel further submits that the private respondent preferred B.L.D.R. Appeal No. 198 of 2012 before the Commissioner, Kosi Division, Saharsa, which was dismissed on 26.12.2014. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed in B.L.D.R. Appeal No. 198 of 2012, the private respondent preferred B.L.T. Case No. 106 of 2015, which was disposed of on 10.05.2016 with a direction to
Pending title suit precludes mutation orders by authoritative bodies, ensuring adherence to due process and natural justice.
Judicial orders must be respected, and actions contrary to statutory provisions in ongoing disputes are null and void.
The absence of valid documentation to support a claim of land ownership leads to dismissal of the case, affirming the original ownership.
The court ruled that a decree from a Title Suit is not binding on parties who were not involved in the suit, necessitating fresh consideration of the land mutation application.
The Circle Officer's refusal to mutate land based on a valid court decree and compromise is unlawful.
The denial of a petitioner's application for Jamabandi due to insufficient evidence was legally flawed given the established title rights in prior judgments.
The judgment emphasizes that ownership established by past legal documents cannot be disregarded without substantial evidence and must be addressed through civil proceedings.
The binding nature of judgment and decree in a title suit, and the validity of mutation orders were central to the court's decision.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
