: Old mutation entries cannot be easily invalidated without proper evidence and civil suits are essential for determining property ownership.

D.N. PATEL, J.

1. These Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred by the State of Jharkhand being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 2900 of 2007 dated 17.06.2008 and in W.P. (C) No. 4452 of 2008 dated 28.05.2009, whereby the petitions preferred by the petitioners were allowed and the cancellation of the mutation entry by the Government was set aside. Mutation entry in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner was running in the name of Rang Nath Sahu from 1955-1956 from whom the petitioners purchased the property by registered sale-deeds dated 04.05.1992 and dated 07.07.1992 respectively and in their names also the mutation entry was running from the year 1992 onwards. Thus, basically the old mutation entry of the year 1955-1956 has been cancelled in the year 2002 by the Government and later on, such order has been confirmed by the Revenue Authorities. This cancellation of the mutation entries have been quashed and set aside by the learned Single Judges in both the aforesaid writ petitions and hence, these Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred by the State of Jharkhand.

2. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the land in question is pertaining to R.S. Khata No. 194, Plot No. 3683, admeasuring 20 decimals of land of Village Simalia, Thana No. 739, District-Ranchi for W.P. (C) No. 2900 of 2007 and another land is of the same plot for 20 decimals (W.P. (C) No. 4452 of 2008).

3. These lands were purchased by the husband (petitioner of W.P. (C) No. 2900 of 2007) and by wife (W.P. (C) No. 4452 of 2008) by registered sale-deeds from Rang Nath Sahu.

4. It appears that Rang Nath Sahu obtained the land from Thakur Mahendra Nath Sahdeo. Originally 12 Acres of land was settled by Ex-landlord Thakur Mahendra Nath Sahdeo on 09.06.1942 in favour of Rang Nath Sahu and this Rang Nath Sahu sold 20 decimals of land to the petitioner of W.P. (C) No. 2900 of 2007 and 20 decimals of land to the petitioner of W.P. (C) No. 4452 of 2008 by registered sale-deeds nos. 4313 dated 04.05.1992 and by another registered sale-deed dated 07.07.1992.

5. It further appears from the facts of the case that Chanchala Devi and Dineshwar Prasad are the husband and wife and in their names, the mutation entries were also carried out. From 1955-1956 the mutation entry was in the name of Rang Nath Sahu. After coming into force of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 the rent has been assessed in the name of Rang Nath Sahu in Case No. A-29/1955-1956 and Jamabandi No. 194/624 was created in the name of Rang Nath Sahu.

6. After purchasing of the lands in question by husband and wife, who are the petitioners in both the writ petitions, the Mutation Case No. 183/R27/1993-1994 was filed and the Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi allowed the said case and mutation entry was made in favour of both the petitioners.

7. Thus, it appears from the facts of the case that originally Thakur Mahendra Nath Sahdeo settled the land in favour of Rang Nath Sahu on 09.06.1942. After the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the assessment was also made in the name of Rang Nath Sahu from 1955-1956. The Mutation entries and revenue records reveal the name of Rang Nath Sahu from whom the petitioners of both the writ petitions, purchased the part of the land i.e. 20 decimals + 20 decimals by two different sale-deeds dated 04.05.1992 and 07.07.1992 and in their names also, orders have been passed by the Circle Officer for carrying out the mutation entries in the name of purchasers in the year 1993-1994.

8. These entries have been cancelled in the year 2002 because one Halka Karamchari has given a report that the land in question is a Gair Majaruwa Malik land. This one line report of Halka Karamchari has given birth to several litigations which has led to two Letters Patent Appeals by the State.

9. It appears from the facts of the case that t