Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Reeta Devi Gutgutia – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition filed for quashing eviction order (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners claim possession based on kurfanama (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. lack of documents to support possession claim (Para 6 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. kurfannama found to be forged; possession claims not valid (Para 11 , 13 , 15) |
| 5. court dismisses writ; no evidence for rights established (Para 14 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
In light of the order dated 18.09.2014, notice upon respondent no.4 has already been effected and, thereafter, this matter was adjourned on different dates, however, respondent no.4 has chosen not to appear and in that view of the matter, this writ petition is being heard in absence of respondent no.4.
3. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 21.01.2012 passed by respondent no.2 in R.M.R. No.344 of 1994-95, whereby, the order dated 17.06.1994 passed by respondent no.3 in R.E. Case No.96 of 1994 has been set-aside with a direction to take appropriate steps for eviction of the petitioners from the lands in question.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that Plot No.902 of Jamabandi No.80 of Mouza Deodan
The court ruled that in land disputes, claims of possession and ownership must be substantiated with credible evidence, and forged documents cannot establish legal rights.
The court emphasized that the order of mutation neither confers nor extinguishes any right of the parties over the land and that the purpose of mutation is only to collect government revenue from a p....
Established rights to land tenure under Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act are protected against late claims, affirming the finality of earlier judgments.
Long-standing Jamabandi cannot be annulled without proper jurisdiction; authorities cannot cancel orders made without lawful authority, as established in the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.
Long-standing Jamabandi cannot be cancelled in summary proceedings as it undermines previously established property rights without due process.
Mutation does not confer or extinguish title and is based on possession for revenue purposes. The decree in a civil suit may not necessarily relate to the land in question for the purpose of mutation....
Mutation orders require evidence of possession through lawful transfer, and failure to consider possession invalidates such orders.
Challenging decisions within a reasonable time is crucial, and delay may render claims unsustainable.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
