The court reaffirmed that mutation orders must adhere to established legal principles, ensuring specific findings and consideration of ongoing legal disputes.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying therein for quashing of the order dated 28.04.2022 (Annexure-8) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 25/2010-11 preferred by the respondent nos. 5 to 8 against the order dated 19.10.2010 passed by the respondent no. 3 in Mutation Appeal No. 6/2010-11; whereby the respondent no. 2 has allowed the said Miscellaneous Appeal No. 25/2010-11 by setting aside the order dated 19.10.2010 passed by the respondent no. 3 and directed the Circle Officer, Sisai to hand over the possession appertaining to land Mouza Kudra, Khata No. 144, Plot No. 890, area 0.69 acres in favour of respondent no. 5 to 8.

Petitioners further pray for quashing of the order dated 29.10.2009 (Annexure-3) passed by the respondent no. 4, Circle Officer, Sisai in Mutation Case No. 229R27/2009-10; whereby the application for mutation of land Mouza Kudra, Khata No. 144, Plot No. 890, area 0.69 acres filed by the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that the Khatiyani Raiyat is disputing over the land.

2. Brief facts of the case as it appears from the pleadings are that the land under Khata No. 144, Plot No.890, Area 0.69 acres of Mouza Kudra, P.S Sisai, District-Gumla has been recorded as Bakast Bhuihari in the name Sukhan Oraon and Kocha Oraon. Kocha Oraon died issueless in jointness. Hence, the land in question and other land devolved upon recorded tenant Sukhan Oraon.

In the year 1940 recorded tenant Sukhan Oraon had a son Baneya Oraon who sold the land in question in favour of Balmukund Sahu and since then he remained in peaceful possession over the land. Baneya Oraon S/o Sukhan Oraon initiated a proceeding under Schedule Area Regulation in the year 1975-76 as S.A.R. Case No.498/76-77 against Balmukund Sahu father of Baleshwar Sahu.

On 29.11.1976 learned Presiding Officer has passed the order in favour of Balmukund Sahu and directed him that he would make available the similar quality of land in the same vicinity of the land in question to the applicant Baneya Oraon and this order has never been challenged by the applicant and attained its finality.

3. It further transpires that pursuant to the order dated 29.11.1976, Balmukund Sahu with consent of his nephew Brahmdes Sahu executed a gift deed appertaining to the land of Khata No.138 plot No.259 area 0.71 acres village-Kurda, P.S. Sisai, District-Gumla in favour of Baneya Oraon through registered gift deed no. 2425/1976 dated 15.12.1976 Thereafter, on 28.05.1979 land in question was mutated in the name of Balmukund Sahu and Baleshwar Sahu in Mutation Case No. 5/1979-80 and rent receipt was issued (Annexure-1).

On 28.08.2009 Baleshwar Sahu having valid right title, interest and possession transferred the land in favour of the petitioner no. 1 Sabir Hussain by virtue of registered sale deed. (Annexure-2)

4. The petitioner no.1 Sabir Hussain filed an application for mutation before the respondent no. 4 Circle Officer, Sisai vide Mutation Case No. 229R27/2009-10. On 29.10.2009 Mutation case was rejected by the Circle Officer, Sisai (Annexure-3).

The petitioner no. 1 being aggrieved with the order dated 29.10.2009 passed by the respondent no. 4 preferred the Mutation Appeal No 6/2010-11. On19.10.2010 the said Mutation Appeal was allowed by the respondent no.3 (Annexure-4)

On 25.10.2010 the land in question was duly mutated in the name of petitioner no. 1 and correction slip in his name was issued and thereafter he started paying rent to the Government (Annexure-5).

5. It further appears that the grandfather of respondent nos. 5 to 8 being aggrieved with the o