IMPORTANT POINT
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 in civil court, not through revenue officers.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing of the order dated 10.06.2016 passed by the respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi whereby and where under the respondent No.2 has been pleased to allow the Mutation Revision No.144-R-15/2014-15 of the Respondent No.5-7 by setting aside the order dated 20.08.2014 passed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Ranchi in Mutation Appeal No.20-R15/2013-14 as well as the order dated 18.12.2006 passed by the learned Circle Officer, Namkum in Mutation Case No.1954-R-27/2005-06 and also for direction upon the respondents for issuance of rent receipts as the petitioner is the bona fide purchaser in possession of the land pertaining to Khata No.25, Plot No.856, 579, 737 and 738 measuring an area of 1.64 acre of land situated at village- Obaria, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi.

3. The brief fact of the case is that Chamru Ram Loharia was the recorded tenant of the land in question involved in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, he died in the year 1950 and his nearest agnates Kushal Ram Nayak and Mangal Ram Nayak inherited his property having perfect right, title and interest over the property. They sold the said property inherited by them besides the petitioner; to the wife of the respondent No.5 (i), wife of respondent No.6 and the mother of the respondent No.6 and the original respondent No.7, as well. The petitioner purchased the land involved in this writ petition from Kushal Nayak, Son of Shiv Tahal Nayak through registered deed of sale bearing deed No.609/88 on 19.01.1988. After purchase, the petitioner applied for mutation of the land in her name and the land was mutated in the Sherista of the State vide Mutation Case No.1954-R-27-2006-07 on 18.12.2006. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 18.12.2006 passed by the Circle Officer, Namkum, the respondent Nos.5 to 7 challenged the said order after the period of limitation for filing of said appeal; vide Mutation Appeal No.20/2013 but the L.R.D.C. vide order dated 20.08.2014 directed the original respondent Nos.5 to 7 of this writ petition to move before the appropriate civil court. The original respondent Nos.5 to 7 of this writ petition challenged the said order dated 20.08.2014 passed in Mutation Appeal No.20/2013 before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Mutation Revision No.144-R-15/2014-15. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi allowed the revision and set aside the order of the L.R.D.C. and the Circle Officer, Namkum, Ranchi.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs. Smt. Indu Devi reported in 2016 (3) JLJR 286 wherein the Division Bench of this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of M.P. vs. Pradeep Kumar reported in (2000) 7 SCC 372 paragraph-10 of which reads as under:-

10. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Pradeep Kumar, reported in (2000)7 SCC 372, especially paragraph nos. 17, 18 and 19 thereof, as under:

“17. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has subsequently overruled the dictum laid down by the Single Judge in the above case (vide Maya Devi v. M.K. Krishna Bhattathiri.) The same fate had fallen on the view adopted by the Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Madhukar case when a Division Bench had subsequently overruled it (State of Karnataka v. Nagappa). N. Venkatachaliah and S.A. Hakeem, JJ. (as they then were) dealt with the background of introducing Rule 3-A in Order 41 of the Code and after discussion held that sub-rule (1) of Rule 3-A is mandatory. However, learned Judges pointed out that sub-rules (2) and (3) have been employed by the legislature for highlighting the purpose of introducing such a new Rule. The following passage from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court can usefully b