Mutation does not confer or extinguish right and title, and revenue authorities are not empowered to decide intricate questions of title.

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.10.2015 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh (respondent no. 2) in Mutation Revision No. 56 of 2010 whereby the Circle Officer, Ramgarh (respondent no. 5) has been directed to stay the issuance of rent receipt with respect to the land in question.

2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the land under Khata No. 8 situated at village Bankheta, P.S Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh was recorded in the C.S. record of right as “Jirat Malik” in the name of Kishun Singh and the land of Khata No. 9 of the said village was recorded as “Bakast Malik” in the name of Kishun Singh who remained in possession over the said land so long he was alive and after his death, his only son Dhiraj Nath Singh inherited the same and continued in possession thereof. Dhiraj Nath Singh died leaving behind his widow Janak Kunwari and his son Hemnath Singh who jointly inherited the land and after vesting, the demand was opened in the name of Janak Kunwari. Hemnath Singh was married to Pancham Kunwari. Pancham Kunwari adopted the husband of the petitioner namely Sidheshwar Singh according to the custom and executed and registered a deed of adoption dated 13.04.1977. Pancham Kunwari @ Pancham Devi out of her love and affection made gift of the land measuring an area of 5.63 ½ acres out of plot nos. 1195, 1196, 948, 949, 1002, 1004, 1043, 1007, 1044, 1046, 1047, 1079, 1100, 1177, 1127, 1128, 1135, 1142, and 1144 of Khata No. 8 and 9 of the said village (hereinafter to be called the ‘said land’) to the husband of the petitioner namely Sidheshwar Singh by virtue of registered deed of gift dated 26.04.1994 and the donee came into possession over the same. The Circle Officer after making due enquiry on the factum of possession and semblance of title mutated the name of the husband of the petitioner in the revenue records with respect to the aforesaid land and the husband of the petitioner went on to make payment of the rent to the revenue authorities and rent receipts were issued in his favour acknowledging his possession over the said land. Aggrieved thereby, Pancham Kunwari filed Mutation Appeal No. 02 of 2008-09 before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ramgarh, (respondent no. 3), however the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 26.03.2010. Pancham Kuwari filed Mutation Revision No. 56 of 2010 before the respondent no. 2 and during the pendency of the revision, she died and in her place, Laxmi Narayan Singh (respondent no. 5) was substituted in the case. The respondent no. 2 finally vide order dated 17.10.2015 directed the parties to move before the civil court of competent jurisdiction and in the meantime, the respondent no. 4 was directed to stay the issuance of rent receipt with respect to the land.

3. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the wife and legal heir of the deceased Sidheshwar Singh is in physical possession over the land having acquired the same in a legal and valid manner and the respondent no. 5 being the stranger has no right, title, interest and possession over the aforesaid land. It is further submitted that the order passed by the respondent no. 2 directing the respondent no. 4 to stop the issuance of rent receipts with respect to the said land without giving any cogent reason is void and without jurisdiction. It is also submitted that the respondent no. 2 has exceeded his jurisdiction by directing the respondent no. 4 to stay issuance of rent receipt without going into the merits of the case. The name of the husband of the petitioner namely Sidheshwar Singh (since deceased) was duly mutated by the respondent no. 4 after making due enquiry on the factum of possession and semblance of title and the same has been affirmed in appeal and thus the respondent no. 2 had no jurisdiction to pass order directing the respondent no. 4 to stop issua