JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.06.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Garhwa (respondent no.2) whereby the said respondent remitted the record related to correction of the revenue record and fixation of rent to the Circle Officer, Garhwa seeking certain information and directed him to resend the record through the respondent no. 3- Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Garhwa.

2. The factual matrix of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner no.1 applied for correction of revenue record before the Circle Officer, Garhwa on 03.07.2009 which was registered as Misc. Case No. 25 of 2009-10 and the Circle Officer, Garhwa made recommendation to the respondent no. 3 for necessary correction in the revenue record and for realization of rent. However, the said file was returned by the respondent no. 3 on 18.08.2010 to the Circle Officer, Garhwa for ascertainment of genealogical table and also to find out as to whether any appeal was preferred against the order passed in Misc. Case No.19 of 1984-85 by the recorded tenant. Thereafter, the Circle Officer, Garhwa again made recommendation to the respondent no. 3 along with proposed rent to be realized from the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 accepted the recommendation of the Circle Officer, Garhwa and sent the record to the respondent no. 2 for its approval. However, the respondent no.2 resent the file to the Circle Officer, Garhwa making certain queries.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.2 has not applied his mind while passing the impugned order dated 18.06.2011. There was no partition suit pending regarding the land in question among the partners in which father of the petitioner no.1 was one of the defendants as manifested from the description of the suit land given in the decree dated 08.12.1982 prepared in T.S. No. 20 of 1979 (annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition). Moreover, the land in question was not the subject matter of the partition suit as it was self-acquired property and not an ancestral one. It is further submitted that earlier an application of the heirs of recorded tenant (seller) was rejected on 18.10.1984 in Misc. Case No. 19/1984-85 having considered the registered sale deed no. 1437 dated 03.07.1939 which was executed in favour of the father and uncle of the petitioner no. 1.

4. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order dated 18.06.2011 passed by the respondent no.2 is not without jurisdiction and the same is justified. The application giving rise to Misc. Case No. 25 of 2009-10 does not come under the purview of Section 14 of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (in short “the Act, 1973) as the same is not related to mutation of the land, rather for opening of new Jamabandi in favour of the applicant (the petitioner no.1 herein) who is neither the recorded tenant of the land nor the sole successor of the recorded tenant as per the record of rights. The land is recorded in the name of one Bhikari Kandu under Khata No.201, plot nos. 1040 and 1042 measuring an area of 3.03 acres in cadastral survey of Khatian. The applicant (the petitioner no.1) claimed her right upon the said land contending that her father and uncle had purchased the said land in year 1939 and she is the sole successor of her father and uncle. It is further submitted that the petitioner no.1 has not submitted any document to show her right on the land being successor of the purchasers. The petitioners have stated that the land was purchased in year 1939 but it has not been explained as to why the land was not mutated since then. It is a settled principle of law that a sale deed, which is not produced for mutation within 12 years of execution of the sale deed, loses its legal value and the revenue authorities are not bound to mutate that land after 12 years. It is also submitted that the Circle Officer, Garhwa g