Mutation proceedings are administrative and do not confer rights or titles; disputes over ownership must be resolved through civil court.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SHANKAR, J.

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 03.06.2022 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.3 in R.M.R. Case No. 09 of 2019-20 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner’s father has been dismissed. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 22.08.2019 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.4 in Mutation Appeal Case No. 11 of 2008-09 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner’s father has been dismissed upholding the order dated 24.12.2007 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.5 in Mutation Case No. 399/2007-08. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 24.12.2007 passed by the respondent No.5 in Mutation Case No. 399 of 2007-08 whereby the order for mutation of the name of the respondent No.6 in place of the erstwhile existing raiyat with respect to the land situated at Mouza-Madanshahi Tapuwa, Thana No. 13, Jamabandi No. 496/886, measuring total area of 1 Kattha 12 Dhurs was passed. It is further prayed for directing the respondent-State to remove all the entries made in the revenue register pursuant to mutation of the said land in the name of the respondent No. 6.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said land was purchased by Late Satyanarayan Sah from one Jayram Das Kinnara vide registered sale deed No. 3955 dated 04.06.1982. Thereafter, the Jamabandi of the said land was created in the name of Late Satyanarayan Sah and the rent receipts were issued for the same in his name till the revenue year 2005- 2006. Satyanarayan Sah died leaving behind his two sons, namely, Narsingh Prasad Sah (the father of the petitioner) and Omprakash Sah.

3. It came to the notice of the petitioner’s father that the said land was sold by Om Prakash Sah to one Rajesh Kumar Sah (the respondent No.6 herein) vide registered sale deed Nos. 3120 & 3121 dated 27.06.2007, which was subsequently mutated in his name in terms with the order dated 24.12.2007 passed by the respondent No.5 in Mutation Case No. 399 of 2007-08 without issuing any notice to the petitioner’s father calling for objection in the said mutation proceeding.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner’s father filed Mutation Appeal Case No. 11 of 2008-09 before the respondent No.4, which was kept pending for a decade. In the meantime, the petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the office of the Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj as to what action was taken pursuant to the application dated 13.09.2010 filed by his father for making enquiry from all the people mentioned in the notice issued by the respondent No.5 to 16 Anna Raiyats in connection with Mutation Case No. 399 of 2007-08 as to whether their signatures giving no objection were forged or they had actually put their signatures on the same.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the required information was provided to the petitioner vide Memo No. 3143 dated 29.12.2011 enclosing therewith a copy of the enquiry report dated 15.10.2010 submitted by the Police Inspector, Nagar Prabhag, Sahibganj wherein it was stated that all the persons, whose signatures were found on the notice, had unequivocally averred that their signatures were forged. Thereafter, an FIR being Sahebganj (T) P.S. Case No. 61/12 was lodged by the petitioner against the then Revenue Karamchari and the respondent No.6 in which during the trial, all the prosecution witnesses stated on oath that their signatures relating to no objection as mentioned in the notice of Mutation Case No. 399 of 2007-2008 issued from the circle office wer