Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
Anil Kumar Bajaj - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 3471 of 2023
Decided on : 26-11-2024
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed inter alia for issuance of a writ of mandamus upon the Respondent to ensure that the revenue records of the Petitioner and his father with respect to the land appertaining to Khata No. 176, Plot No. 44, admeasuring an area of 23 Kathas, 11 chattak, 25 square feet and 20 katha, 11 chattak, 25 square feet respectively (hereinafter after referred to as the ‘scheduled land’ for the sake of brevity) as contained in Register-II be made visible online.
3. Mr. Parth Jalan Advocate, assisted by Ms. Shivani Jaluka, representing the petitioner submits that the scheduled land is a part of the land falling under Khata No. 176, Thana No. 203, which comprises of Plot No.44 along with the plots within Mouza-Hehal admeasuring a total area of 31.52 acres. This land is recorded in record of rights prepared during the RS Survey (Annexure-1) in the name of the one Ganga Prasad Budhia. Ganga Prasad Budhia sold the entire land admeasuring 31.52 acres (including the scheduled land) to Maharaja Nand Kishore Nath Shahdeo vide a registered sale deed bearing number 6043 dated 10.11.1944. The land was subsequently inherited by the son of the Maharaja namely Arun Nath Shahdeo. Mutation was carried out in the name of the Maharaja in the year 1971.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the land was partitioned between the family members of the Maharaja. In terms of the settlement, 11.02 acres fell in the share of Arun Nath Shahdeo, 7.70 acres fell in the share of Kiran Bala and land admeasuring an area of 6.40 acres each was given to Deepak Nath Shahdeo and Dilip Nath Shahdeo respectively.
The scheduled land fell in the share of Arun Nath Shahdeo and his wife. The Petitioner and his father purchased the land, from Arun Nath Shahdeo and his wife namely Kiran Bala vide registered sale deed(s) bearing number 2242 and 2241, both dated 5.02.1974. (Annexure-2).
Thereafter, the petitioner and his father applied for the mutation of the lands in their name. The said applications were registered as Mutation Case No. 107/R27/73-74 and 108/R27/73-74 respectively. The said applications were allowed vide order(s) dated 28.02.1974 and accordingly the name of the Petitioner and his father were entered in Register-II and correction slip were issued in their favor (Annexure-3).
It has been further submitted by the Ld. Counsel of the Petitioner that pursuant to the orders dated 28.2.1974, the Petitioner has been regularly depositing rent for the scheduled property. Further, the Petitioner had also obtained a sanction for a building plan from the Improvement Trust, Ranchi in the year 1977 and had constructed a building over it, in which the Petitioner is residing peacefully. The Petitioner is also paying rent and municipal holding tax till 2022-23 (Annexure-4).
5. Learned counsel further submits that in the year October 2022, the Petitioner filed a representation before Respondent No. 4, (Annexure-5) stating the entire land antecedent. The case of the Petitioner is that he was having problems in making payment of the revenue rent online as the revenue records of the Petitioner with respect to the scheduled land was not uploaded/visible online. Accordingly, the Petitioner requested that the revenue records of the Petitioner and his father with respect to the scheduled property be uploaded online to enable him to make payment of the rent revenue rent. When no action was taken on his representation, he obtained a certified copy of the Register-II of the scheduled land (Annexure-6) and filed another representation before Respondent No. 3. However, no action was taken and hence the Petitioner was constrained to file the instant writ petition.
6. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned S.C. (L&C) I, at the outset submits that he is also representing SIRD and adopting the Counter-affidavits filed by the Respondent-State. On basis of the counter-affidavit filed on 5th of October 2023, he had submitted that the re
Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate on ownership rights; long-standing jamabandi entries must be respected and made visible online for administrative purposes.
Government authorities can cancel Jamabandi if opened without jurisdiction or through fraudulent means, safeguarding public interest over erroneous administrative actions.
Long-standing Jamabandi cannot be cancelled in summary proceedings as it undermines previously established property rights without due process.
The court emphasized that the order of mutation neither confers nor extinguishes any right of the parties over the land and that the purpose of mutation is only to collect government revenue from a p....
Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to annul long-standing Jamabandi under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, and actions must be initiated within a reasonable timeframe.
Long-standing Jamabandi cannot be annulled without proper jurisdiction; authorities cannot cancel orders made without lawful authority, as established in the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.
Point of Law : Words “a notice to all persons known or believed to be interested to the effect that the registry will be made” assumes importance in the present case. According to the petitioner, no ....
Revenue records do not confer title; ownership must be established through valid documentation and historical possession.
Mutation proceedings under U.P. Revenue Code do not determine title or confer ownership; such matters are subject to civil court adjudication, and petitions against mutation orders are generally not ....
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
