Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate ownership disputes; such matters must be resolved in civil court.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents-State and learned counsel appearing for the private respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

2. Prayer in this writ petition is made for quashing of the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla in Case No. 33/2022-23, in terms of which after restoring the mutation revision No. 18/2019-20, has dismissed the mutation revision case. Further prayer is made for quashing of the order dated 16.02.2019 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Gumla, in Case No. 59/2017-18 in terms of which the mutation appeal No. 59/2017-18 preferred by the private respondents, challenging the order of mutation in favour of the petitioner has been allowed.

3. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased the land in Mouza Arana, Khata No. 18, Plot No. 62 (admeasuring 0.26 Acre) & 64 (admeasuring 0.12 Acre) total area 0.38 Acre, vide deed No. 1577/1979 dated 17.07.1979. He submits that the petitioner remained in continuous possession over the said piece of land and enjoyed peaceful possession over the same. He further submits that the Circle Officer vide order dated 06.06.2017, allowed the mutation in favour of the petitioner. He then submits that the private respondents preferred a mutation appeal No. 59/2017-18 on 14.03.2018 against the order dated 06.06.2017. He submits that the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Gumla allowed the said mutation appeal No. 59/2017-18 in favour of the private respondents, against that the petitioner has preferred a revision before the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, which was registered as Mutation Revision No. 18 of 2019, which was dismissed on 19.10.2022. He submits that in the meantime, one proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated and the possession of the petitioner was found there. He further submits that the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have decided the right, title and interest, which is not under the domain of the revenue authorities. On these grounds, he submits that both the orders of the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority may kindly be quashed.

4. Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State submits that the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority has rightly passed the orders, as the dispute is there with regard to deed number.

5. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 submits that there is serious dispute with regard to the deed of the petitioner, which has been cut in the petition filed by the petitioner himself. He submits that the petitioner has obtained the information under the RTI Act, by which, he has been informed that the mutation was done on the basis of the deed No. 2784 dated 07.09.1967, which is in the name of Bisia Kharia, wherein the petitioner is Manu Prasad Sahu @ Manu Prasad. He further submits that the mutation is already running in the name of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and after 35 years, an application was filed by the petitioner for mutation, and thereafter the mutation was done in favour of the petitioner by the concerned Circle Officer. In view of the above, he submits that the disputed questions cannot be the subject matter of the writ petition and the petitioner is required to move before the competent court of civil jurisdiction.

6. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the court has gone through the materials available on record and finds that Annexure-1 of the writ petition is the ordersheet, by which, one mutation proceeding was initiated, where in the first page, it is clearly stated that the deed no. 2784 dated 17.07.1979, however, there is a cut mark and the deed number is rectified to deed No. 1577 and in the next page the deed number is said to 2784 dated 07.09.1967. Thus, in the order itself, it i