IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1175 of 2003

1. Nandlal Ram (Substituted vide order dated 30.03.2009)

1.a Sanjay Kumar Paswan, S/o Nand Lal Ram

1.b Amit Kumar, S/o Nand Lal Ram

1.c Chandan Kumar, S/o Nand Lal Ram

1.d Soni Devi, D/o Nand Lal Ram

1.e Bobby Devi, D/o Nand Lal Ram

1.f Lakshmi, W/o late Nand Lal Ram (Deleted vide order dated

10.10.2022)

All resident of Mohalla Hurhuru, P.S. Sadar, P.O. and District Hazaribagh.

2. Dilip Kumar

3. Chhotelal All sons of Late Lalu Ram

4. Most. Kamli, Wife of Late Lalu Ram All residents of Mohalla Hurhuru, P.S. Sadar, P.O. and District-

Hazaribagh … … Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. The Commissioner North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh.

3. The Additional Collector, Hazaribagh

4. The Khasmahal Officer, Hazaribagh

5. Harish Chandra Ram, Son of late Khuni Ram, resident of Mohalla Hurhuru, P.O. and District-Hazaribagh (Substituted vide order dated 06.01.2009)

5.a Kanti Devi, widow of Late Harish Chandra Ram

5.b Viki Kumar @ Bablu, S/o: late Harish Chandra Ram

5.c Shiv Shankar Ram, S/o: late Harish Chandra Ram

5.d Dolly Kumari (minor), D/o: late Harish Chandra Ram (Under guardianship of her mother Kanti Devi)

All are resident of Mohalla Hurhuru, P.O. and District-Hazaribagh … … Respondents ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

For the Petitioners : Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate For the Private-Respondents : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents-State : Mr. Vineet Prakash, AC to SC-IV ---

61/17.02.2026

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order and direction from this Hon’ble Court for quashing the order dated 30.10.99 (contained in Annexure-3) passed by the respondent No.3 the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh in Misc Case No. MAN-31/97 reversing the order dated 17.7.89(Contained in Annexure-1) passed by the respondent No.4 Khasmahal Officer, Hazaribagh in District Hazaribagh Case No. 488 of 88-89/48 of 89-90 allowing mutation of the land in question in favour of father of the petitioner No. 1 to 3 Lalu Ram and the petitioner No.4 and further for quashing the order dated 18.10.2002 contained in Annexure-4 passed by the respondent No.2, the Commissioner South Chotanagpur Division in Mutation Revision No.114 of 2001, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners affirming the order dated 30.10.1999 passed by the respondent No.3 contained in Annexure 3 of the writ application.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are claiming property by virtue of registered sale deed executed by the descendants of the recorded raiyat and the application for mutation was allowed by Khas Mahal Officer vide order dated 17.07.1989, but the said order was set aside by the Appellate Authority by observing that the property is not Khas Mahal Property and the learned Commissioner has dismissed the revision by observing that the Khas Mahal Officer, Hazaribagh was not the competent authority and accordingly not vested with the power to mutate raiyati land, as the power was vested with the Anchal Adhikari, Sadar Anchal, Hazaribagh.

4. The learned counsel has referred to Annexre-5 and has submitted that the same reveal that vide notification dated 22.08.2000 the Circle Officer was given the power to do the required mutation and the order of mutation by the Khas Mahal Officer was passed way back on 17.07.1989.

5. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the Annexure-5 does not reveal that the Khas Mahal Officer was the competent authority to pass order of mutation in connection with Raiyati land and admittedly, the property is not a Khas Mahal property, but is a raiyati land. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference. He has submitted that there is no impediment on the part of the petitioners to approach the Circle Officer for mutation which can be considered as per law.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private party