Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2183 (PAT)

Nabin Kishore Singh v. State Of Bihar

2010-09-17

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2010
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the State and the Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 6. The lands in question originally belong to Harihar Shukla, who had two wives, Bhanmati Kuer and Hunkari Devi. Bhanmati Kuer died issueless. Before her death, she gifted some of the properties to Rambha Devi and Sunil Shukla. Hunkari Devi had two sons, Hridyanand and Manan Shukla. Rambha Devi is the wife of Hridyanand and Sunil and Anil Shukla are the sons of Hridyanand and Rambha Devi. 2. The case of the petitioner is that there was an amicable partition between Hridyanand and Manan Shukla and all the properties were divided half and half. It is submitted that those properties which were also gifted to Rambha Devi and Sunil Shukla were included in the said partition. Harihar Shukla purchased the lands measuring 1 bigha 15 kathas and 9½ dhurs and 1 bigha 15 kathas 11½ dhurs in the year 1946 and 1948. The name of Harihar Shukla was mutated. The memorandum of partition, as per the case of the petitioner, was prepared on 15.06.1987. The petitioner is said to have purchased 10 kathas 15 dhurs each by two sale deeds from Manan Shukla which appertains to plot no. 625, measuring 5.89 acres. The claim of the petitioner is that Manan Shukla, by virtue of the partition deed, had sold the aforesaid lands to the petitioner. 3. The case of the respondent no. 6 is that he too had purchased 7 kathas 14% dhurs of land from Sunil Shukla. The dispute arose because of two facts. The petitioner claims that in fact there is no land left for Sunil Shukla to sell, as previous to the sale in favour of the respondent no. 6, Sunil Shukla had sold his share of lands to different persons. The respondent no. 6, on the other hand, contends that once Bhanmati Kuer had gifted the land to Rambha Devi and Sunil Shukla, Manan Shukla could not have sold those lands to the petitioner as those lands come into the exclusive possession of the donees. 4. Apart from the facts aforesaid, learned Counsel for the petitioner expressed doubts with respect to the mutation proceeding. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the lands were registered by virtue of sale deed no. 2740 in favour of respondent no. 4. Apart from the facts aforesaid, learned Counsel for the petitioner expressed doubts with respect to the mutation proceeding. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the lands were registered by virtue of sale deed no. 2740 in favour of respondent no. 6 on 28.02.2005, whereas the application of the petitioner for mutation was received in the Office of the Circle Officer on 10.01.2005 and the order sheet has been corrected, from 10.01.2005 to 01.03.2005. This Court had called for the original records of Case No. 880 of 2004-05. Counsel for the respondent no. 6 has explained the cuttings in the order sheet by stating that the cuttings have been made on all the pages which have been mentioned as 10.01.2005. This Court however, finds that the application has obviously been made on 10.01.2005 whereas the sale deed was executed on 28.02.2005 in favour of the respondents. It appears that the then Circle Officer has obviously tried to manage the records, which he need not have done. The matter could have been explained by the Circle Officer that although the application was filed on 10.01.2005, it was pre-mature but since the sale deed has been subsequently executed, the Circle Officer taking note of that could have proceeded in the matter, in stead of trying to commit the mistake by making cuttings in the dates in the order sheets. 5. In these circumstances, the orders dated 12.10.2009 passed by the Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah in Case No. 83 of 2005-06 order dated 20.07.2005 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Narkatiaganj in Mutation Appeal No. 03 of 2005-06 and order dated 01.03.2005 passed by the Circle Officer, Lauria in Case No. 880 of 2004-05 are hereby quashed. 6. The petitioner is directed to take fresh steps by filing a fresh application for mutating his name before the Circle Officer, Lauriya who will issue notice to the parties and all the parties should be heard and documents should be perused before passing an order in favour of one or the other party. This application is thus disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.