IMPORTANT POINT
Revenue officers lack jurisdiction to adjudicate title disputes, and entries in revenue records are presumed correct until proven otherwise, emphasizing the need for adherence to statutory authority in land revenue matters.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer for issue of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) for quashing and setting aside the order dated 28.05.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma in Miscellaneous Revision No. 54 of 2013 whereby and where under, the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma has rejected the revision application and prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 14.06.2013 (a copy of which has been kept at Annexure -6 of this writ petition) passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Koderma by which the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Koderma has suspended the acceptance of rent and issuance of rent receipt to the petitioner till the time, decision is taken on the title of the land by the competent civil court as such order has been passed by L.R.D.C., Koderma without jurisdiction.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner which is the registered charitable institution, purchased the land in question vide registered sale deed dated 25.12.1957 and since then the petitioner has been in continuous possession of the subject land bearing plot no. 32, comprising 54 decimals of land situated at Village-Belatand, P.S.-Telaiya, Dist.-Koderma for the purpose of running gaushala known as Koderma Gaushala Samiti of which the Sub-Divisional Officer, Koderma is the ex-officio President. The name of the petitioner was entered in Register II and the petitioner has been regularly paying rent and taxes to the State Government and the municipal authority. After lapse of more than 50 years, i.e. in the year 2009, the respondent no.4 through his power of attorney filed Misc. Case No. 13/2009-10 before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Koderma for cancellation of issuance of rent receipt in the name of the petitioner primarily on the ground that the registered sale deed dated 23.12.1957 was void ab initio as the vendor of the writ petitioner has no right to sell the subject land. The respondent no.3-Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Koderma obtained an opinion from the Government Pleader and on the basis of the same allowed the petition of the respondent no. 4 though the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Koderma has no such power to offset an entry in the revenue record on the basis of any shortcoming in the title of the petitioner. The respondent no.3 passed the order merely on the basis of suspicion as the number of the mutation case has not been mentioned in the entry of the name of the writ petitioner mentioned in Register II. The power of attorney holder of the respondent no.4 who has instituted the said case being Chunni Devi and Jayant Kumar Tank are the relatives of the tenant of the writ petitioner namely Rajesh Jethua and Captain Anand who were evicted from the subject land in the year 2008.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no.3 has erred in exercising the power beyond the statutory limit by suspending the issuance of rent receipts to the petitioner even though being the revenue officer, the respondent no.3 cannot look into any dispute of title over any property. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suspension of grant of rent receipt leads to curtailment of petitioner’s right for an indefinite period; that too without any authority therefor being vested with the respondent no.3. It is further contended by the petitioner that Section 19 of Bihar Tenants’s Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 stipulates that every entry in the continuous khaityan and tenant’s ledger registrar shall be an evidence of the matter referred to in such entry and shall be presumed to be corrected until it is proved by evidence to be incorrect in the proceedings stipulated therein and no such proceeding stipulated under Section 19 of the said Act of 1973 was ever initiated by any person under Chapter XII of the C.N.T. Act. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the pet