IMPORTANT POINT
The correction of revenue records requires rectification of original documents through a competent Civil Court as per Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

ORDER :

Ananda Sen, J.

In this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to quash the Memo No.891/Vidhi dated 30.11.2020 issued by the Deputy Collector Incharge, Giridih, whereby the request of the petitioner to recall the restriction imposed on the sale of land was rejected. Further, a prayer has been made to issue a mandamus commanding upon the Deputy Commissioner to recall the restrain order as contained in letter No.1632/GO dated 03.09.2016 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih.

2. Land in question situated in Village Pandeydih under Khata No.6, Police Station Giridih belonged to the ex-landlord M/s Bengal Coal Company. Vide registered Settlement Deed dated 21.02.1912, the land was settled in favour of Babu Bipin Bihari Choudhary. Plot numbers were mentioned as 381 and 382. The said Babu Bipin Bihari Choudhary sold the aforesaid land to Babu Ram Singh and one Bihari Lal Jalan vide registered sale deed dated 28.01.1935, wherein also the details of land was mentioned as Plot Nos.381 and 382 of Khata No.6, Village Pandeydih. Heirs of Babu Ram Singh sold the aforesaid land to Vijay Kumar Jalan son of Bihari Lal Jalan vide registered sale deed dated 06.05.1980. In the said sale deed also the plot numbers were mentioned as 381 and 382. Co-sharers of the property filed a partition suit being Partition Suit No.34 of 1988 in the Court of Sub Judge, Giridih in respect of the joint family property including the aforesaid property. The suit was compromised and in the said plaint and other documents including compromise petition also, plot numbers were mentioned as 381 and 382. The petitioner, later on came to know that the actual plot numbers of the land was in fact 391, 392 and 393, but it was wrongly mentioned in all the registered sale deeds, settlement deeds and in Court documents as 381 and 382.

Petitioner, thereafter filed an application before the Anchal Adhikari (Circle Officer), Giridih along with documents, praying therein to correct the plot numbers mentioned as 381 and 382 to plot Nos.391, 392 and 393 in the revenue records. In the Revenue Records also, the plot numbers of the petitioner’s land was recorded as plot Nos.381 and 382 as recorded in all the other documents. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application before the Circle Officer, Giridih, praying therein to correct the plot numbers recorded in the Revenue Records against the name of the petitioner from 381 and 382 to plot Nos.391, 392 and 393. An enquiry was conducted and objections were called for and after hearing the parties, the Circle Officer on 08.09.2020, after rejecting the objections, allowed the application of the petitioner and corrected the plot numbers in the Revenue Records as plot Nos. 391, 392 and 393 in place of plot Nos.381 and 382. Thus, as per the Revenue Records, the plot numbers of the petitioner has been corrected.

As some land grabbers started to interfere with the land over plot Nos.391, 392 and 393 (wrongly mentioned as plot Nos.381 and 382), which, according to the petitioner belonged to him, by virtue of registered deed, he filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih to ensure that any portion of the said plots, i.e., plot Nos.391, 392 and 393 are not allowed to be sold by any registered deed. The Deputy Commissioner, on representation of the petitioner, vide letter No.1632/GO addressed to the Sub Registrar, Giridih, instructed the latter not to register any deed in respect of the lands in Mouza Pandeydih, Thana No.43, Giridih Muffasil, Khata No.6, Plot Nos.391, 392 and 393.

Once the plot numbers in the Revenue Records was corrected, the petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, praying therein to recall the restraint order, which was rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the Government Pleader had opined that the petitioner should first get the registered deed corrected by invoking Section 26 of the Specific Reliefs Act. This impugned o