The Circle Officer lacks authority to determine land title, which is reserved for civil courts, emphasizing the separation of powers.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for setting aside the notices with SL no. 178 issued by the Circle Officer, Ranchi in relation to Mauza Lalpur Thana no.197 Khata no. 59 M.S. Plot no. 1263 and 1264 with KN Plot no. 149 and 154 area 0.263 and SL no. 17 in relation to Mauza Lalpur Thana no. 197 Khata no. 59 Plot no. 149 and 154 M.S. Plot No.1263 and 1264 KN Plot no. 149 and 154 area 1.523; whereby the petitioner has been directed to show cause as to why according to the Circular no. 313/14/239 action not be taken as against the petitioner (Annexure -1 Series).

2. Mr. Navin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question was purchased by petitioner's grandfather on 26.07.1927 through a registered sale deed and also the same has also been recorded in Municipal Survey Khatiyan in the year 1929 in the name of the Petitioner's grandfather. He further submits that the land in question was also partitioned by the Partition Deed executed on 05.10.1971 between the legal heirs of the petitioner’s grandfather. Thereafter, an application for mutation of the land was filed by the petitioner and his mother Late Gauri Chakraborty and the same was duly mutated in their name vide Mutation Case No.189/R/27/01-02.

Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner's father and his two uncles on 16.12.2003 executed one land development agreement with M/s Binayaka & Associates for construction of an apartment in the said land and after construction of the apartment, some flats were also sold.

However, all of a sudden, the impugned notices were issued by the concerned respondent taking a stand that the land in question is shown as Khas Mahal land and due to this reason, the purchasers of the flat are not able to sell their flats as the District Sub Registrar is refusing for the same and the concerned Banks are also refusing to grant loan for any purposes for the said flats.

3. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents relying upon the counter affidavit submits that in the mutation done, the details of Plots No. were not mentioned. In the above-referred Mutation case, the applicants applied for succession mutation, and accordingly, the order of succession mutation was passed by the circle office Sahar Anchal, Ranchi without the Plot Number. He further submits that the list of K.M Plot/Land was later given by learned L.R.D.C. Sadar Ranchi in which the said Plot Number 1263 and 1264 were shown in lease, which is the petitioner’s plot. Therefore, impugned notices have been issued.

4 . Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits it appears that the land in question was purchased by petitioner's grandfather namely Late Govaninder Nath Chakraborty @ Gyenendra Nath Chakraborty from one Mr. Nripendra Krishna Biswas on 26.07.1927 through a registered sale deed and the land is also recorded in the Municipal Survey Khatiyan in the year 1929 in the name of the Petitioner's grandfather (Annexure 5 series). It further appears that the grandfather of the petitioner was in peaceful possession of the land in question during his lifetime and thereafter, by virtue of a partition deed executed on 05.10.1971 between the legal heirs of Late Gowaninder Nath Chakraborty @ Gyenendra Nath Chakraborty (Annexure 6), the same was partitioned.

5. It further appears from the documents that an application for mutation of the land was filed in the name of the petitioner and his mother Late Gauri Chakraborty and the same was duly mutated. In the said Mutation Case No.189/R/27/11-12, a report was also called for from the then Halka Karmachari and Circle Inspector; where in the investigation report it has been categorically stated that the said land is a raiyati khatiyani and the same is free from government bhuihari, bhuhadbandi and lease.

It is also evident from record that the name of the petitio