Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, JJ.
Birendra Singh S/o Matuki Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 620 of 2022
Decided On : 30-11-2023
Mutation Proceedings - Land Dispute - Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 - Section 14 - Summary: The court addressed a land dispute arising from mutation proceedings under the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings Act. The appellant challenged the revenue authorities' decision to grant half share of the subject properties to respondent nos. 6 and 7. The court emphasized that mutation proceedings are fiscal inquiries and do not determine right, title, and interest in the property. It highlighted the mandatory requirements under section 14(2) and set aside the writ court's order, quashed previous orders, and restored the mutation case for a fresh decision by the Circle Officer.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a land dispute arising from mutation proceedings under the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings Act. The appellant challenged the revenue authorities' decision to grant half share of the subject properties to respondent nos. 6 and 7.
Finding of the Court:
The court emphasized that mutation proceedings are fiscal inquiries and do not determine right, title, and interest in the property. It highlighted the mandatory requirements under section 14(2) and set aside the writ court's order, quashed previous orders, and restored the mutation case for a fresh decision by the Circle Officer.
Issues: The main issue was the authority of revenue authorities to decide disputes regarding right, title, and interest in the subject properties through mutation proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mutation proceedings are fiscal inquiries and do not determine right, title, and interest in the property. It emphasized the mandatory requirements under section 14(2) and directed the appellant to approach the civil Court for a declaration of their right, title, and interest over the subject properties.
Final Decision: The court set aside the writ court's order, quashed previous orders, and restored the mutation case for a fresh decision by the Circle Officer.
JUDGMENT :
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.
1. Against the writ Court’s order dated 08th March 2022, the appellant who was one of the writ petitioners has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Briefly stated, the lands comprised under Plot No. 214 appertaining to Khata No. 1 in village Nawadih within PO and PS Itkhori in the district of Chatra were recorded in the cadastral survey record of rights in the name of Khirodhar Singh and Charan Singh under the Raja of Padma. Khirodhar Singh being the elder brother was acting as karta of the joint family paid rent to the ex-landlord and, later on, to Rani Rishinath Kunwar after the death of the Raja of Padma. For the reason that Khirodhar Singh made defaults in the payment of rent, a rent suit was instituted by Rani Rishinath Kunwar claiming arrears of rent and the said suit was decreed in her favor. Pursuant thereto, Execution Case No. 20 of 1920-21 was instituted in the Court of the Deputy Commissioner at Hazaribagh and the subject properties were sold in auction and a certificate of sale was granted on 11th September 1920. By virtue of the auction sale, Rani Rishinath Kunwar became full owner of the subject lands and consequently the subject lands acquired the character of “Bakast Land.” The materials on record indicate that Rani Rishinath Kunwar settled the subject lands in favor of Charan Singh by executing a registered Kabuliyat on 14th April 1924 and granted Hukumnama in his favor with respect to 7.70 acres of land. The writ petitioners pleaded that Charan Singh came in exclusive physical possession of the subject lands and his tenancy was acknowledged and recognized by the State of Bihar on coming into force of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. Charan Singh paid rent to the State of Bihar and was granted rent receipts and his name was duly entered in Register-II. The writ petitioner no. 1 is the son of Matuki Singh and the writ petitioner no. 2 is the son of Charan Singh and the other writ petitioners are the legal heirs and representatives of Charan Singh. It appears that during pendency of the writ petition Ranjan Singh who was the writ petitioner no. 2 died and in his place his legal heirs were substituted.
3. This is the case of the writ petitioners that the Halka Karamchari refused to accept rent for whole of the subject lands as half of the subject lands was separated in favor of the respondent nos. 6 and 7 and that is how he came to know about mutation ordered in the name of the respondent nos.6 and 7 in the year 2001. The writ petitioners therefore filed Mutation Appeal No. 21 of 2001 which was allowed by an order dated 10th December 2001. However, this appellate order was reversed in Mutation Revision No. 27 of 2002 by the Additional Collector against which the writ petitioners preferred Mutation Revision No. 86 of 2003. By an order dated 17th March 2004, this revision petition was dismissed with a liberty to the writ petitioners to move the competent Court of civil jurisdiction for declaration of their right, title and interest.
4. Though on 8th March 2022 when the writ petition was taken up for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the writ petitioners but the writ Court proceeded to dispose of the writ petition on the basis of the submissions made by the learned State Counsel and the learned senior counsel for the respondent nos. 6 and 7. The writ Court after adverting to the history how the property came in possession of Charan Singh from Rani Rishinath Kunwar arrived at a conclusion that the writ petitioners should approach the civil Court for resolving the dispute as regards their right, title and interest over the subject properties. The writ petitioners are the descendants of Charan Singh.
5. W.P. (C) No. 4394 of 2004 was disposed of by the writ Court observing as under:
14. It appears that the instant Writ Petition is pending before this Court since the year 2004. This Court has perused the materials brought
Mutation proceedings are fiscal inquiries and do not determine right, title, and interest in the property. The mandatory requirements under section 14(2) must be adhered to, and disputes regarding ri....
Revenue mutation proceedings lack judicial authority and must adhere to due process, enabling disputes over title to be resolved in civil courts.
Mutation does not confer or extinguish title and is based on possession for revenue purposes. The decree in a civil suit may not necessarily relate to the land in question for the purpose of mutation....
The revisional authority under the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act has a narrower jurisdiction than that of an appellate authority, and disputes regarding title must be resolved ....
Mutation orders require evidence of possession through lawful transfer, and failure to consider possession invalidates such orders.
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 p....
The Assistant Collector lacked jurisdiction to confer proprietary rights under the Tenancy Act, and fraudulent actions in mutation proceedings are void.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
