Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
Paras Nath Mahto, son of Kageshwar Mahto and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and ors. – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 3694 of 2017
Decided On : 15-02-2024
[Writ Petition] - [Land Dispute] - [Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Bihar Land Reforms Act, Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act] - [The court discussed the provisions of Article 226, which allows for the issuance of writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. The Bihar Land Reforms Act and Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act were referenced to establish the rights of tenants and the process of land restoration. The court emphasized that the entry in revenue records does not create or extinguish title but is for revenue collection purposes. The court's decision was influenced by the established possession of the land by the respondents, which was not effectively challenged by the petitioners.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought a writ of Mandamus to correct the revenue records regarding a land dispute, claiming their ancestors were the rightful tenants after a series of land transactions and restorations. The respondents contended that they had been restored possession of the land through legal proceedings and were exercising their rights over it.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence to challenge the established possession of the respondents. The court noted that the entries in the revenue records indicated that the land had been restored to the respondents' ancestors, and the petitioners did not effectively dispute this restoration.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to have their names entered in the revenue records and to receive rent receipts for the disputed land, given the established possession of the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that mutation of land records is based on possession and does not determine title. The court emphasized that the petitioners did not demonstrate continuous possession or challenge the veracity of the revenue records showing the respondents' possession.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as it lacked merit, affirming the respondents' established possession of the land in question.
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issue if writ of Mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 to 6 to correct the entry in Register-II with respect to the land in question and remove the names of the original respondent nos. 7 and 8 or their successor therefrom in view of earlier decision of this Court dated 23.04.1991, passed in CWJC No. 1117 of 1984 (R) and 20.05.2024, passed in CWJC No. 81 of 1996(R), the copies of which have been kept at annexure-2 and 3 respectively of this writ petition and further issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 to 6 to accept the rent and to issue rent receipts to the petitioners of their respective lands and consequential reliefs.
3. The case of the petitioners in brief is that the ancestors of the private respondent nos. 7 & 8 were originally recorded tenant of the land in question concerned of 3.78 acres. The father of the respondent nos. 7 & 8 namely Fekan Mahali surrendered the said land along with some other plots to the landlord vide registered sale deeds dated 03.02.1943 and 08.09.1942. The landlord made raiyati settlement of the said plots in favour of the ancestor of the petitioners vide two registered sale deeds dated 03.02.1943 and 02.11.1942 and the ancestors of the petitioners came in possession over the same and started cultivation over the same. After vesting of Zamindari in the State of Bihar under Provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the State of Bihar also recognized the raiyati status of the settlees and issued rent receipts after entering their names in revenue records. After taking settlement in the year 1942-43 the ancestors of the petitioners and after them the petitioners have been coming in continuous cultivating possession over the plots in question and exercising all acts of possession. The respondent no.8 –Jagdish Mahali filed an application on 20.02.1981 under Section 46(4)(a) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act in the court of respondent no.5 against the ancestors of the petitioners and some others for restoration of the land which was registered as Case No. 110 of 1981 and the same was heard and dismissed on merit on 24.10.1981. No appeal or revision was filed by the respondent. The respondent nos. 7 & 8 instituted another proceeding before the respondent no. 5 under Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act for restoration of said plots of land numbered as Case No. 136 of 1980 and the same was dismissed by the respondent no.5 on 14.12.1981. The respondent nos. 7 & 8 filed R.A. No. 7 of 1982 before the respondent no.4. The same was also dismissed on 07.06.1984 but with respect to the lands of the ancestors of the petitioners bearing plot nos. 1680, 133, 85, 763, 809, 810 and 811; the respondent no.4 allowed restoration of lands in the same proceeding vide order dated 07.06.1984 in favour of the respondent nos. 7 & 8 bearing plot no. 105 (area 19 decimals) and plot no. 1579 (area 69 decimals) of Khata No.5 of village –Kulhi.
4. Being aggrieved by the part of the said order dated 07.06.1984 in R.A. Case No. 7 of 1982, the ancestors of the petitioners filed CWJC No. 1117 of 1984(R) on 19.09.1984 which writ petition was allowed vide Judgment dated 23.04.1991 by a Bench of Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench quashing the order. The respondent nos. 7 & 8 being aggrieved by the said order dated 07.06.1984, passed in R.A. Case No. 7 of 1982 moved in revision before the Commissioner who remanded the matter to the respondent no.4. The respondent no.4 in turn vide order dated 16.12.1989 remanded the matter to the original court i.e. the respondent no.5. The respondent no.5 decided the matter in favour of respondent nos. 7 & 8 vide order dated 04.12.1991. The ancestors of the petitioners filed Appeal No. 2 of 1992 and the matter was remanded to the respondent no.5 for re-hearing but again the respondent no.5 decided the same in favour of
The principle that entries in revenue records are for revenue collection purposes and do not confer or extinguish title, and that possession is the key factor in determining rights in land disputes.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of acquiring occupancy rights as under Raiyat for mutation under the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011.
Revenue records do not confer title; ownership must be established through valid documentation and historical possession.
Mutation orders require evidence of possession through lawful transfer, and failure to consider possession invalidates such orders.
The delay in challenging mutation and regularization proceedings, as well as the absence of challenge to said proceedings, can bar a petitioner from seeking relief. Lack of evidence of possession can....
The court affirmed that previous decrees extinguished the appellants' tenancy rights, and their subsequent claims constituted an abuse of legal process.
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....
The court reaffirmed that unauthorized changes in land records without due process violate principles of natural justice and cannot substantiate claims of ownership less than legal title.
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
