Rejection of a land mutation application on technical grounds without adequate consideration is inconsistent with procedural fairness and requires rectification.

Order :

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 27^th December, 2022 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the Circle Officer, Khunti (the respondent no.3) in Mutation Case No. 920 R27 of 2022-23/Khunti, whereby the petitioner’s application for mutation of the land appertaining to Khata No.13, Plot Nos.372, 373, 655 and 696 measuring an area of 17 decimals, 2 decimals, 3 acres and 3.82 acres respectively, Khata No.75, Plot Nos.29, 30, 31, 32 and 83 measuring an area of 55, 40, 70, 10 and 95 decimals respectively, Khata No.78, Plot no.121 measuring an area of 45 decimals, Khata No.79, Plot Nos.112 and 37 measuring an area of 20 and 42 decimals respectively and Khata No.33, Plot No.33 measuring an area of 48 decimals (Total 11.28 acres) situated at Mouza-Khunti Tola, Thana No.80, District-Khunti has been rejected in a cryptic manner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has the lawful right and title over the aforesaid land. She preferred an application seeking mutation of the said land in her name before the respondent no.3 which was registered as Mutation Case No.572-R 27 of 2018-19. The said case was rejected by the respondent no.3 vide order dated 24^th October, 2018. Aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner preferred Mutation Appeal Case No.07 of 2019-20 in the court of Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Khunti. The said appeal was disposed of by the appellate authority vide order dated 16^th March, 2022 setting aside the order dated 24^th October, 2018 passed by the respondent no.3 and remanding the matter back to him for passing fresh order keeping in view the observation made in the order dated 16^th March, 2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that pursuant to the order of remand dated 16^th March, 2022 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Khunti, the respondent no.3 registered a fresh case being Mutation Case No.920 R27 of 2022-23/Khunti, however, the same was also rejected vide order dated 27^th December, 2022 in a cryptic manner merely observing that as per the report of concerned Revenue Sub-Inspector and Circle Inspector, the deed document was not opening due to which needful action could not be taken.

4. Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, learned A.C. to A.G. appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that it is evident from the impugned order dated 27^th December, 2022 itself that while rejecting the petitioner’s application seeking mutation of the land in question in her name on technical ground, she was given liberty to prefer a fresh application in that regard.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the writ petition.

6. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Khunti vide order dated 16^th March, 2022 while remanding the matter back to the respondent no.3 had made certain observation which was required to be considered by the respondent no.3. However, on perusal of the impugned order dated 27^th December, 2022 passed by the respondent no.3, it appears that the same has been rejected on technical ground observing that as per the report of the concerned Revenue Sub-Inspector and Circle Inspector, the deed document was not opening due to which needful action could not be taken.

7. If that was the position, the respondent no.3 should have waited for some more time till the said technical issue was resolved. Instead of that, he rejected the petitioner’s application on technical ground. Though vide said order, the petitioner was also asked to file a fresh application, however, since the respondent no.3 was hearin