Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Dilip Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Gauri Shankar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P.(C) No.4155 of 2002
Decided on : 09-10-2023
Mutation - Land Dispute - Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS REFERENCED: Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973] - The court discussed the dispute over the mutation of land under the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. The court emphasized that mutation does not confer or extinguish title and is based on possession for revenue purposes. The court upheld the revenue authority's decision to create mutation based on possession, stating that it did not violate the decree passed in a civil suit.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners claimed ownership of a piece of land, while the respondents also asserted rights to the same land. The dispute involved multiple legal proceedings, including a title suit and mutation appeals. The Deputy Commissioner ordered mutation in favor of the respondents, leading to the petitioners filing a writ petition to quash the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revenue authority's decision to create mutation in favor of the respondents based on possession did not violate the decree passed in the title suit. The court upheld the decision and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the revenue authority's decision to create mutation in favor of the respondents violated the decree passed in the title suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mutation does not confer or extinguish title and is based on possession for revenue purposes. It emphasized that the possession of the respondents over the land in question justified the creation of mutation, and the decree in the title suit did not relate to the land in possession of the respondents.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the revenue authority's decision to create mutation in favor of the respondents based on possession.
JUDGMENT :
1. This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing of the order dated 18.10.1995 passed by the Circle Officer, Dumka in R.M. Case No.14/95-96 and order dated 20.02.2002/01.04.2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka in Rev. Misc. Appeal No.59/1995-96, whereby and whereunder the circle officer , Dumka had mutated the names of opposite parties nos.4 to 6 and thereafter Deputy Commissioner (Respondent No.2) issued orders and directions to the circle officer to enter the name of the opposite parties nos.4 to 6 with respect to the portion of Plot no. 1626 of Dumka Town, in Register-II and also rent receipts.
2. The brief fact of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, reads as under:
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the absolute owners having subsisting title to a piece of land measuring 10 Kathas 17 Dhurs and bearing plot no.1626 situated in the town of Dumka, District-Dumka. The aforesaid land once upon a time belonged to one Probodh Chandra Dey. The said Prabodh Chandra Dey executed a deed of lease with respect to a portion of aforesaid plot no.1626 in favour of late Babulal Sharma. The said lease was created for 25 years w.e.f. 02.07.1936.
4. After commencement of the lease, said Prabodh Chandra Dey executed a deed of absolute sale being deed no.128 on 09.03.1937 with respect to the entire area of Plot no.1626 in favour of same Babulal Sharma. On 09.03.1937, Prabodh Chandra Dey was divested of all right, title, interest and all sorts of concern with the entire lands of plot no.1626 which came under the absolute ownership of Babulal Sharma.
5. The said Babulal Sharma was looking after the entire affairs of family and after his sudden death, the petitioners became helpless and ignorant of all the papers, deeds and all other documents regarding the properties and business etc. On 16.03.1937, Prabodh Chandra Dey again created two leases with respect to the land of plot no.1626 in favour of Md. Matin and also executed a deed of sale with respect to the same land in favour of Md. Hussain, son of Md. Matin on 25.03.1937.
6. The aforesaid two documents are said to have come into existence on 22.04.1937, one was Bazi Dava purported to have been executed by the said Babulal Sharma and the another was the deed of cancellation executed by Prabodh Chandra Dey with respect to the sale deed dated 09.03.1937 in favour of Babulal Sharma.
7. After expiry of 25 years from the date of creation of the lease in favour of Babulal Sharma, a dispute arose between these petitioners and their mother and one more brother, both deceased on the one hand and Md. Matin Ancestor of the O. Ps nos. 4 to 6. Md. Matin filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner and their brother Shyam Sundar Sharma and mother Mani Devi, which was registered as Suit no. 72 of 1961.
8. This suit was with respect to a portion of Plot no.1626 measuring 70 x 65 with specified boundaries. The defendants of the said suit being the petitioners and others put in written statement and denied the claims of the plaintiff for decree of eviction.
9. The learned sub-judge while considering the validity of lease deed dated 02.07.1936 with other issues dismissed the suit by disallowing the claim of Md. Matin for eviction vide Judgment dated 5.7.1963 which was followed by a formal decree drawn up on 15.7.1963.
10. The plaintiff of the suit being ancestors of O.Ps. no 4 to 6 preferred an Appeal no.71/63/9/68 against the said judgment and decree and the learned District Judge by his judgment dated 13.1.1969, dismiss the appeal and confirm the judgment and decree passed by the learned sub-judge. The judgment of the 1ST Appellate court was followed by a formal decree drawn on 19.01.1969 and signed & sealed on 20.01.1969.
11. On 18.02.1969, the plaintiff/appellant preferred second Appeal no.68 of 1969 before the Hon'ble High court of Judicature at Patna. On 01.12.1975, the Hon'ble Court d
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....
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 authorities must effect mutation based on registered civil court consent decrees without adjudicating title, probate, prohibitory orders, or registration issues, as proceedings are fiscal onl....
Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate title, probate or decree validity in mutation proceedings; must effect mutation on registered civil decrees for fiscal purposes unless set aside by competent cou....
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....
A landowner's right to mutate property based on a registered sale deed cannot be legally denied without lawful acquisition or evidence of ownership disputes.
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
