Revenue mutation proceedings lack judicial authority and must adhere to due process, enabling disputes over title to be resolved in civil courts.

JUDGMENT :

Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J

I.A No. 4000 of 2023

This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 77 days in preferring L.P.A No. 132 of 2023.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also after going through the cause shown in this interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay, we find sufficient grounds to condone the delay of 77 days and, accordingly, I.A No. 4000 of 2023 is allowed.

L.P.A No. 132 of 2023

3. Sumit Kumar Tirkey claiming himself son of late Jagat Pal Oraon has filed this Letters Patent Appeal to challenge the order passed by the writ Court in W.P.(C) No. 722 of 2011.

4. By an order dated 1^st December 2022, the writ Court interfered with the order dated 27^th October 2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner at Gumla by virtue of which the Circle Officer made an order for correction in the revenue records in the name of the father of the appellant.

5. Briefly stated, the father of appellant made an application on 27^th August 2009 for correction in the revenue records through mutation by virtue of registered sale deed dated 3^rd August 2009. Upon filing of such an application, the Circle Officer directed the Halka Karamchari to submit a report. This also appears from the proceeding in Mutation Case No. 150R27 of 2009-10 that Aam Ishtehar was issued but no objection was registered against the application for mutation filed by the father of the appellant. However, a glance at the proceeding dated 28^th October 2009 discloses that mutation in respect of the subject property was recorded in the revenue records in the name of Mohan Sahu son of Bal Govind Sahu.

6. Tulsi Sahu and Kashi Nath Sahu came to this Court in W.P.(C) No. 722 of 2011 to challenge the order for correction in the revenue records in the name of Jagat Pal Oraon, the father of the appellant. During pendency of the writ petition, Tulsi Sahu passed away and his wife Bimla Devi and son Manoj Kumar Sahu were substituted as his legal heirs. The writ Court having found that long standing Jamabandi running in the name of the writ petitioners and their predecessors could not have been cancelled without due notice upon them, passed the following directions:

“Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that in the State of Jharkhand, the revenue authorities are not following the procedure mentioned in the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Record) Act 1973 and thus some confusion has cropped up before this Court.

It is made clear that a long standing jamabadi running in the name of person cannot be changed without due notice to the person in whose name the jamabandi is existing. Apart from that once the civil court has decided the issue in favour of person, it is incumbent upon the revenue authority to open or continue his jamabandi over the said land without any interruption till the order of the civil court is set aside by any appellate court or revisional court.

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is hereby allowed.

The respondent- Deputy Commissioner, Gumla is directed to issue rent receipt by continuing the same in favour of the petitioners with respect to Khata No.37, Plot No.136, area 0.99 decimals of Village- Bisrampur, District- Sisai, District-Gumla in the name of Mohan Sao and their legal heirs within a period of three weeks from the date of production of the copy of the order.

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla through FAX/e-mail.”

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid direction of the writ Court, this Letters Patent Appeal has been filed primarily on the ground that the writ Court could not have issued a direction for issuance of rent receipts in the name of Tulsi Sahu and Kashi Nath Sahu. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel for the appellant refers to the judgment in Title Suit No. 23 of 1990 to submit that the rights as claimed by the wr