IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
M/s Micro Cement Pvt. Ltd.- Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 264 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No. 265 of 2018
Decided On : 12-09-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing orders related to mutation applications (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. proof of longstanding possession and transfers (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. writ jurisdiction invoked due to perceived injustice (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. civil consequences of property rights and procedures in law (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. state powers and procedural adherence in property matters (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. final judgment quashing prior orders and allowing applications (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
Deepak Roshan, J.
1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. Since both these writ applications are interconnected and relates to the same petitioner; as such, both were heard together and being disposed of by this common order.
2. The writ application being W.P. (C) No. 264 of 2018 has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs:
i. For quashing of the Order dated 21.01.2016 whereby the circle officer has rejected the Petitioner’s application for mutation in utter violation of Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973.
ii. For issuance of appropriate writ particularly in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the list of prohibited land (Annexure-8) whereby and whereunder the Land in question i.e., Khata No. 157, Plot No. 413 admeasuring an area of 6 kathas i.e., 9.9 decimals, has been inserted in the list of prohibited land issued for Prohibition of Registration of Transfer of land under National Generic Document Registration System List (NGDRS List). (Subsequently inserted through an I.A. no. 4623 of 2025 vide order dated 25.04.2025).
3. The writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 265 of 2018 has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs:
i. For quashing of the Order dated 21.1.2016 whereby the circle officer has rejected the Petitioner’s application for mutation in utter violation of Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973.
ii. For issuance of appropriate writ particularly in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the list of prohibited land (Annexure-8) whereby and whereunder the Land in question i.e. Khata No. 157, Plot No. 413 admeasuring an area of 14 kathas has been inserted in the list of prohibited land issued for Prohibition of Registration of Transfer of land under National Generic Document Registration System List (NGDRS List). (Subsequently inserted through an I.A. no. 4624 of 2025 vide order dated 25.04.2025).
4. Briefly stated, the Land in question were purchased from the Settled Raiyat long back and had been thereafter duly mutated and Jamabandi was opened in the name of the Vendors of the Petitioner which was continuing for more than forty years. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the plot of land.
A complaint was made that the land in question was a Gair Abad Khata and, therefore, the mutation was put on hold. The private compliant was enquired into by the Additional Collector and in the letter dated 19.09.2015 and he recorded a finding that the petitioner was in possession of the land since long and the complaint was false and frivolous.
Despite the findings as recorded on enquiry by the Additional Collector, the Deputy Commissioner vide letter dated 18.05.2016 directed the Circle Officer that since the land belongs to Gair Abad Khata and was transferred after 01.01.1946, therefore, it was felt necessary to make enquiry into the said transfer and directed that the letter of Additional Collector be not acted in the said matter.
Further, the property of petitioner has been inserted in the list of prohibited land issued for prohibition of Registration of Transfer of Land under National Generic Document Registration System List. Hence, these writ applications.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Chawra family purchased 1 Bigha 2 Kathas of land vide registered deed of sale bearing 6080 dated 11.06.1954 and subsequently the names of members of the Chawra family were mutated in the revenue records of the State (Refer Annexure 1 se
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.