SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1619

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, S.C. (L&C)-III

The right to property is a constitutional guarantee, requiring due process before depriving an individual of possession, and administrative actions affecting property rights must follow principles of natural justice.

Headnote:(A) Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 - Sections 4 and 14 - Writ applications filed for quashing orders rejecting mutation applications and prohibiting land registration - The petitioner claimed ownership through registered deeds dating back, however, their applications were denied based on findings disputing land ownership without due process. The Deputy Commissioner’s rejection conflicted with previous rulings affirming the petitioner’s rights. (Paras 9-12)

(B) Right to Property - The right to property includes the right to enjoy property, from which one cannot be deprived without due process. (Paras 12-13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner has sought to quash a 2016 order rejecting their mutation application and claiming land was wrongly categorized as prohibited. Complaints had been ruled out as unfounded, yet rejection continued without clear reasons.

Findings of Court:
The orders rejecting the applications were quashed as they violated statutory rights and procedural fairness, impacting the petitioner’s enjoyment of the land.

Issues: Whether the orders rejecting the mutation applications were lawful and proper, particularly concerning the land's classification.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the revenue authorities must comply with statutory conditions and cannot disrupt settled land records without due process, affirming the right to property as guaranteed by law.

Result: Writ applications allowed; orders quashed.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top