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

2001 Supreme(Jhk) 764

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
Ram Kumari Devi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent


ORDER

The Court

1. All the petitioners claim to have purchased certain respective piece of land from Shri Dhiru Bhal C. Dave by registered sale deeds No. 4839, 4840 and 4842 all dated 2.8.1996. Their grievance is that the respondent-Circle Officer, Dhanbad has not registered the applications for mutation of their respective land on the ground that the sale deeds were executed outside the State.

2. According to counsel for the petitioners. In terms with the decision of this Court in Smt. Bala Pandey and others, the State of Bihar and others, CWJC No. 2903/98 (R), disposed of on 26.6.2000 as affirmed by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 4.12.2000 passed in SLA (Civil) No. 8080/ 2000. the respondent- Circle Officer is only liable to see the possession of one or other petitioner to decide the question of mutation and cannot refuse to mutate the land on the ground that the registration was made at Calcutta.

3. It is a settled law that mutation of land/(sic) or jamabondi does not create any right and title in favour of one or other. It merely allows a person, to entered his name in Register II for the purpose of payment of rent. It is always open to the competent authority to determine





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top