Delay in seeking mutation, failure to prove possession, and lack of challenge to the jurisdiction of the revisional authority can impact the outcome of a land dispute case.

1. Aggrieved by order dated 12.10.2004 passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh and order dated 12.04.2013 passed by the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The petitioner claiming ownership over 0.41¾decimal of land in plot no. 1599, Khata No. 218 through registered sale-deed dated 31.10.1969, is aggrieved by order passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh whereby, the Mutation Revision No. 20 of 2003 preferred by respondent no. 7 has been allowed. The petitioner preferred a review petition being Mutation Review No. 85 of 2004 which has been dismissed on the ground that there is no provision for review of the revisional order.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the application preferred by the petitioner, Mutation Case No. 647 of 200001 was initiated in which a general notice was issued. No objection to the application of the petitioner seeking mutation of the aforesaid land in her name was received and therefore, the Circle Officer allowed the mutation application. The appellate court dismissed the Mutation Appeal No. 2 of 2003 and affirmed order passed by the Circle Officer however, the revisional authority which has no jurisdiction to entertain and exercise the revisional powers under the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 allowed the revision petition preferred by the respondent no. 7. Relying on decisions passed in “Lalman Mahto & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.”, reported in 2010 (1) JLJR 475 and in “Ram Shankar Bhagat & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.”, reported in 2003 (2) PLJR 331, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisional order dated 12.10.2004 is without jurisdiction and therefore, liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that even though the respondent no. 7 claims to have acquired right, title and interest over 24 decimals of land, he never came in possession of the said land and the petitioner who has purchased 0.41¾decimals of land vide sale-deed dated 21.10.1969 has been in possession is reflected through the order passed by the Circle Officer in as much as, the Circle Officer has passed the order on the basis of the report of Halka Karmchari who found the petitioner in possession of the land in question. The learned counsel for the respondent State of Jharkhand opposes the writ petition and submits that the revisional court has rightly observed that filing of the mutation application about 32 years after the alleged sale-deed dated 31.10.1969 makes the claim of the petitioner suspicious.

4. A perusal of the correction slip issued by the Circle Officer indicates that he has ordered mutation in the name of the petitioner in place of the vendor of the petitioner and consequent correction in Register II. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent no. 7. The revisional authority has recorded that the appellate authority as well as the Circle Officer have ignored the execution of saledeed dated 24.01.1965 conveying 24 decimal of land in favour of respondent no. 7. Once it has been brought to the notice of the appellate authority that one Janki Rana has executed a sale-deed in favour of respondent no. 7 on 24.01.1965, the application seeking mutation in her name could not have been allowed by the Circle Officer in as much as, the Revenue Authorities have no power to adjudicate title of the rival parties. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that he had been in possession of the said land in as much as, on the basis of the report of Halka Karmchari, the Circle Officer has directed mutation in her name is not supported by the conduct of the petitioner herself. The petitioner though claims to have purchased the land in question vide sale-deed dated 31.10.1969, submitted an application for mutation only in the year, 2000. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the law does not provide a limitation for pr