IMPORTANT POINT
The decree from a competent court in a title suit is binding on the state, and revenue authorities must act in accordance with such decrees, regardless of public use claims over the land.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

I.A. No. 3288 of 2023:

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay of 251 days which has occurred in the filing the instant appeal.

2. The explanation has been furnished that after the judgment having been passed on 06.06.2022 in W.P.(C) No. 3070 of 2008, the instant appeal has been filed on 12.07.2022 which is beyond the period of 30 days, i.e., after lapse of 06 days but on the basis of the web copy of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.

3. Subsequently, the certified copy was obtained but due to inadvertence, the certified copy pertaining to the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 3070 of 2008 has not been filed due to bona fide mistake and when the same has come to the knowledge of the appellant, the certified copy of the order dated 06.06.2022, which was obtained on the basis of requisition dated 22.02.2023, was filed and hence, the office has reported the delay of 251 days.

4. This Court, considering the reason assigned in the instant interlocutory application, is of the view that the delay occurred in filing the instant appeal deserves to be condoned

5. Accordingly, the delay occurred in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned, as such, the instant interlocutory application stands disposed of.

L.P.A. No. 283 of 2022:

Prayer:

6. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the letters patent is directed against the order dated 06.06.2022 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 3070 of 2008 whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge has passed order while allowing the writ petition directing the revenue authority to grant rent receipt within the period of 30 days from production of the copy of the order as they have not preferred any appeal against the judgment passed in title suit by making the necessary correction in the revenue record by deleting the entry of Anabad Bihar Sarkar by substituting the name of the petitioners or his/her legal heirs, in accordance with law.

Facts:

7. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings in the writ petition reads as under.

The writ petitioner is the absolute owner of the land measuring 12 Dhoor in Plot No. 815, Khata No. 413, Mouza Jugsalai, P.S. Jugsalai Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum situated in Ward No. 4 of Jugsalai Municipality.

It is the case of the writ petitioner that the land in question previously belonged to the tenant holder of a Estate Community known as Dhalbhum Raj namely, Sri Jagdish Chandra Deb who gifted a block of land measuring 5 Bigha 4 khatas I dhorr bearing survey plot no.1423 in Mouza Jugsalai to his daughter-in-law Smt. Krishna Kumari Devi on 24.07.1947 and said Smt. Krishna Kumari Devi came into the possession under the same right and interest, who sold an area measuring about 12 Dhoor vide deed of sale no.712 dated 22.12.1969.

It is also the case of the writ petitioner that the gift in favour of Smt. Krishna Kumari Devi was cancelled on 22.03.1954 by the order of the Collector thereafter, she moved before the Patna High Court by filing petition being M.J.C. Case No. 173 of 1954 in which the order of the Collector dated 22.03.1954 was quashed with the direction not to interfere with the possession of Smt. Krishna Kumari Devi and her leasee with respect to such portion of land over which the kutchery building do not stand.

Further, the land in question during the recent survey has wrongly been recorded in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar in plot No. 815 under Khata No. 413 in notified area committee Jugsalai and when the writ petitioner came to know about this record, he filed a Title Suit No. 30/1990 in the court of Sub-Judge at Jamshedpur. The suit has been decreed in favour of the writ petitioner wherein possession has also been confirmed and it has been further held that a wrong entry in survey Khatian stands in the name of State of Bihar though it should have been in the name of writ petitioner.

The petitioner filed a fresh application before Deputy Commi