The court emphasized that the order of mutation neither confers nor extinguishes any right of the parties over the land and that the purpose of mutation is only to collect government revenue from a person who is in possession of the land.

ORDER :

W.P.(C) No. 2016 of 2021

W.P.(C) No. 2016 of 2021 has been preferred for quashing the order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (the respondent no. 2) whereby direction has been issued to the Circle Officer, Hehal Circle, Ranchi to cancel the jamabandi running in the names of ancestors of the petitioners being the recorded raiyats of the land appertaining to Khata No. 140, plot Nos. 1323, 1324, 1333, 1334, 1338 and 1337/1349 measuring an area of 7.16 acres out of total area measuring 10.88 acres of village Bajra, Thana No. 140, District - Ranchi (hereinafter to be referred as the said land) with a further direction to open the jamabandi of the said land in the name of the respondent no.5.

2. The factual background of the case of the petitioners of W.P.(C) No. 2016 of 2021 as stated in the said writ petition is that the said land is recorded in the R.S. Record of Rights as ‘Bakast Malik’ under Khewat No.-6/2 standing in the name of Sitaram Sahu and Thakur Dayal Sahu sons of Man Govind Sahu of Village Argora, Ranchi who were the ancestors of the petitioners. After vesting of Zamindari, jamabandi of the said land was opened in the name of the recorded tenants in Volume 1, Page no. 141 of the Register-II. On 28.10.1960, a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C was initiated on protest against digging of the land with respect to plot no. 1324 by one Deodutta Singh, however the same was dropped on 17.12.1960 due to expiry of statutory period of sixty days. Again on 04.05.1961, Deodutta Singh forcibly tried to raise brick kiln on Plot No. 1324 due to which Sitaram Sahu filed Title Suit No. 379 of 1961 in the court of Munsif, Ranchi against defendant no.1-Deodutta Singh and defendant no. 2-Devi Dayal Sahu (brother of Sitaram Sahu) for declaration of his title with respect to plot no. 1323 and 1324 of Khata No. 140, village Bajra also seeking permanent injunction on the ground that those plots had fallen in his share in a partition suit with the defendant no. 2. In the said suit, temporary injunction was granted in favour of Sitaram Sahu which was made absolute vide order dated 08.02.1962 against which Misc. Appeal No. 06 of 1962 was filed before the Special Sub-Judge, Ranchi which was also decided vide order dated 28.01.1963 observing that the plaintiff would be compensated in terms of money if he succeeds in the suit. Few years back, the respondent no.5 filed an application before the Circle Officer, Town Circle, Ranchi (the respondent no. 4), registered as Mutation Case No. 1214 R 27/2015-16 for mutation of his name with respect to the said land claiming that the same was purchased by his father Late Roop Narayan Singh from ex-landlords namely Sitaram Sahu and Thakur Dayal Sahu through registered sale deed no. 255 dated 17.01.1938. The respondent no.4, vide order dated 07.08.2015, dismissed the application of the respondent no.5 observing that as per the report of concerned revenue Karamchari and Circle Inspector, the father of the respondent no. 5 was never in possession of the said land. Thereafter, the respondent no.5 preferred appeal before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ranchi (respondent no.3) being Mutation Appeal No. 13-R-15/2015-16, however the same was also dismissed vide order dated 20.04.2017 on the ground that the respondent no.5 was not found in possession of the said land observing that the registering authority i.e., the District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi, vide letter no. 1021 dated 29.08.2016, had reported him that it was not possible to verify the sale deed no. 255, Volume no. 6 of the year 1938 allegedly executed in favour of the father of the respondent no. 5 with the official record maintained in registry office due to tampering of page nos.133 and 134 of the said sale deed kept in the office record. The respondent no. 5, being aggrieved with the order of the respondent nos. 3, preferred revision before the respondent no.2 being Mutation Revision No. 24 R 15/2018-19 with an application f