Dr. Govind Jee Sahay vs State Of Jharkhand through the Secretary

Rajesh Kumar, J

The present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:-

“A. Issuance of a writ of certiorari or in nature thereof for quashing /cancelling/rescinding --

I). The order dated 24-12-2022 passed by Respondent Dy. Commissioner, Ranchi in Mutation Revision Case No. 66 R 15/2018-19 (Annexure - 7), whereby he disposed of revision of the petitioner after holding that dispute of title is involved in this matter which can be settled in appropriate  civil  proceeding, but before that conclusion, he uphold/justified the order of mutation in  favour  of  the  Respondent  No.  5  over  land  of  Khewat  No.  3, Khata No. 51 Plot No. 739 (area 55 decimals) and Plot No. 604 (area 13 decimal) = TOTAL AREA- 68 decimals, in village - Namkum, Thana No. 214, District - Ranchi (hereinafter to be referred as "the land involved in this case" only);

II). The order dated 28-06-2018 passed by Respondent - Dy. Commissioner Land Reforms, Ranchi  in Mutation Appeal Case No. 74 R 15/16-17 (Annexure-5), whereby he allowed mutation in favour of the Respondent No. -5 over the land involved in this case;

B. Issuance of a writ of mandamus or in nature thereof commanding/directing/restraining the Respondents or their sub-ordinates or agents or staffs or assign from interfering with right, title  and possession of the  petitioner  over  the land involved in the case; AND/OR be pleased to issue any other appropriate writ(s) / order(s)/direction(s)/rule(s) in the facts and in the circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice.”

It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner  that  the  subject  land  was  purchased  in  the  year  1935  in  execution  of  a decree, and  since then the said land has remained in continuous  possession of the petitioner’s ancestors and, thereafter, of the petitioner himself. Further, it has been submitted that Form“M”has been prepared in favour of the father of the petitioner and on that basis, he submits that the land belongs to him and the transfer mutation done in favour of the private respondent is bad in law.

An application by the Respondent No.5 has been made before the Circle Officer, Namkum for transfer of mutation and a proceeding has been initiated being  Mutation  Case  No.574/2016-2017  but  it  has  been  rejected  as  objection  has been raised by the petitioner. Thereafter an appeal has been preferred by the Respondent No.5 without impleading the petitioner before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ranchi numbered as Mutation Appeal Case No.74 R 15/16-17 which  has  also  been  objected  by  the  petitioner  but  the  said  Mutation  Appeal  has been allowed vide order dated 28.06.2018 in favour of Respondent No.5.

Being  aggrieved  by  the  order  dated  28.06.2018,  the  present  petitioner  had filed a revision being Mutation Revision Case No.66R15/2018-19 before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and the same has been disposed of vide order dated 24.12.2022. The relevant portion of the said order is quoted herein below:-

The law is settled that the transfer mutation authority has only to see whether  there is  existing  mutation  in the name of vendor/seller of  the property  or not  and  if  there  is  existing  mutation  in  the  name  of  vendor/seller  of  the  property then the Circle Officer has no other option but to transfer the mutation to the purchaser.  If  anybody  makes  any  complain  regarding  the  title  of  the  property  on the basis of one or another document then he is free to get it corrected through the Civil Court. Only on the basis of an order passed by a competent Civil Court transfer mutation can be interfered by the Circle Officer, otherwise he has no other option but to effect/transfer the mutation from the seller to the purchaser.

Thus, this court finds that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi is perfectly in accordance with law as the law operating in the field i.e. the Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973.

In view of above discussion, I do not find any reason to entertain the present writ petition, accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.