The court emphasized that mutation applications must be adjudicated with proper consideration of all documentary evidence and the right to a fair hearing, reiterating the importance of procedural fairness in administrative decisions.

ORDER :

SATYAVRAT VERMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Tuhin Shankar, learned AC to GP-12 and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No .9.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the land in dispute pertains to Khata No. 107 (old)/Khata No. 369 (new), Khesra No. 460 (old)/Khesra No. 888(new), Thana No.-133, Tauzi-2318, at Mauza-Benipatti, District-Madhubani.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the dispute in the present case with respect to aforesaid khata relates to an area of land measuring 2 Katha 18 dhur, purchased by two separate registered sale deeds by petitioners both dated 2-11-2022. It is further submitted that vide Sale Deed No. 7914 dated 2-11-2022, the petitioner had purchased 1 katha 7 dhur of land of the aforesaid khata and from the Sale Deed No. 7915 dated 2-11-2022 an area of 1 katha 11 dhur was purchased.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in dispute originally belonged to the ex-landlord Babu Ambika Singh and the ex-landlord had settled the aforesaid piece of land with Asharfi Mishra, uncle of Sukhchandra Mishra, from whom the petitioner, by the aforesaid two sale deeds, purchased the land in dispute. It is next submitted that Asharfi Mishra by a gift deed dated 6-3-1968 gifted the land in dispute to Sukhchandra Mishra, his nephew, and Sukhchandra Mishra thereafter got Jamabandi No. 131 created with respect to the land in dispute and is paying the rent all throughout since the creation of the Jamabandi to the State of Bihar.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that said Sukhchandra Mishra by the aforesaid two sale deeds sold the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner as recorded hereinabove. It is next submitted that the petitioner after purchasing the land in dispute filed Mutation Case No. 4649 of 2022-2023 and Mutation Case No. 4650 of 2022-2023 for getting the land mutated in his name, but then both the mutation applications came to be dismissed by separate order both dated 28-2-2023 passed by the Circle Officer, Benipatti.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the petitioner filed Mutation Appeal No. 95 of 2023-2024 against the order dated 28-2-2023 in Mutation Case No. 4650 of 2022-2023 passed by the Circle Officer before the DCLR.

7. At this stage, the learned State counsel points out that on behalf of the petitioner, two mutation cases were filed, but then it appears that petitioner filed Mutation Appeal Case No. 95 of 2023-2024 only against the order passed in Mutation Case No. 4650 of 2022-2023, and as such no appeal was filed against the order passed in Mutation Case No. 4649 of 2022- 2023, hence it is submitted that the order passed by the Circle Officer in mutation case No. 4649 of 2022-2023, in absence of challenge, attained finality.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not able to rebut the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, but then submits that the DCLR in Mutation Appeal No. 95 of 2023-2024 filed against the order dated 28-2-2023 in mutation case No. 4650 of 2022-2023 set aside the order passed by the Circle Officer by an order dated 14-9-2023 (Annexure-9 to the writ application) wherein it was recorded that the Circle Officer rejected the Mutation Case No. 4650 of 2022-2023 based on the report of the Karamchari, who had reported that the land in dispute is of Gar Majarua Aam Khas Khata, but then the Circle Officer did not appreciate the fact that the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Sukhch