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.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

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.

2. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

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.

4. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the lands appertaining to Plot No.902 under Khata No.80 in Mouza- Deodanr, Mouza No.190, now in the district of Godda was originally recorded in the Records of Rights in the name of Sukhan Mandal, who died leaving behind his son Dugai Mandal. Ultimately, Dugai Mandal also died leaving behind Most. Felli Devi, who was issueless. He further submits that on 18.04.1934, Most. Felli, widow of Late Dugai Mandal executed Kurfanama in favour of original petitioner no.1 and the fathers of petitioner nos. 2 to 10 in respect of one bigha sixteen kathas and fifteen chhataks being the portion of Plot No.902, Khata No.80 of Mouza Deodanr. He submits that pursuant to such Kurfanama, the original petitioner no.1 as well as the fathers of petitioner nos. 2 to 10 came in peaceful possession thereof. He then submits that on 02.02.1962, Most. Felli made an application before the Sarpanch of Village- Deodarn with a prayer for taking steps against the original petitioner no.1 as well as fathers of petitioner nos. 2 to 10, however, by the order dated 27.02.1962, the Sarpanch disposed of the matter by observing that the matter has been settled between the parties. He next submits that on 27.02.1962, Most. Felli filed an application before Sarpanch Gram Kutchery- Deodanr admitting the acquisition of right by the petitioners, their ancestors and their continuous possession. He also submits that original petitioner no.1 and fathers of petitioner nos. 2 to 10 jointly filed an application before the Circle Officer, Poraiyahat for mutation of their names in respect of the said land which was registered as Mutation Case No.3/2010 of 1968-69. He submits that in that case, notices were issued vide order dated 09.07.1968 and in pursuance thereof on 24.09.1968, Most. Felli submitted her no objection in the said mutation case and ultimately vide order dated 24.12.1968, the then Circle Officer, Poraiyahat allowed the prayer for mutation in favour of original petitioner no.1 and the fathers of petitioner nos. 2 to 10. According to him, the said order of mutation was never challenged. He further submits that in light of the order dated 17.06.1994 in R.E. Case No.96 of 1994 after hearing both the parties, respondent no.3 observed that the land in question is not agricultural land, rather it is residential one and by the said order, it was held that the petitioners are not liable to be evicted. He then submits that against the order dated 17.06.1994 passed by respondent no.3, Most. Felli and respondent no.4 jointly filed a revision petition being R.M.R. No.344 of 1994- 95 before respondent no.2. He submits that in that case, the petitioners appeared, however, due to miscommunication