Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1462 (PAT)

Harihar Roy v. State Of Bihar

2012-10-15

KISHORE K.MANDAL

body2012
ORAL ORDER Heard. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.7.2012 passed by the respondent Collector (Annexure-1) affirming the order dated 15.3.2012 (Annexure-2) passed by the appellate authority in Mutation Appeal No. 30 of 2010-11. Let it be recorded that the appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 19.6.2010 (Annexure-3) passed by the respondent Circle Officer in Mutation Case No. 260/1 of 2010-11. The appellate authority in the impugned order has observed as under:- **foi{kh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk vkxs dguk gS fd vihykFkhZ foi{kh ds }kjk [kjhns x;s mDr edku ds uhpyh lrg esa dqN fnuksa ds fy, jgus nsus ds fy, foi{kh ls vkxzg fd;k ysfdu ckn esa tc edku dk uhpyk rYyk ugha [kkyh fd;s rks foi{kh us fookfnr edku ds uhps rRys dks viykFkhZ ls [kkyh djkus ds fy, fu’dklu okn la0 33@2011 nk;j fd;k gS] tks eqfUlQ &3] iVuk ds U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gSA foi{kh dh vksj ls vius nkos dh iqf’V esa ikoj vkWQ vVZuh fnukad 18-9-2009 dh Nk;kizfr] jktLo jlhn vkfn nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA mijksDr of.kZr rF;ksa ds vkyksd esa eSa bl fu’d’kZ ij igq¡prk gw¡ fd O;ogkj U;k;ky; esa iz”uxr Hkw[kaM ls lEcaf/kr LoRo okn la0 249@2010 vihykFkhZ }kjk nk;j fd;k x;k gS tks lc tt izFke] iVuk ds U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gS rFkk foi{kh }kjk fu’dklu okn la0 33@2011 Hkh nk;j fd;k x;k gS tks eqfUlQ&3] iVuk ds U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gSA tc rd O;ogkj U;k;ky; }kjk mDr LoRo okn esa fu.kZ; ugha gks tkrk gS] rc rd fuEu U;k;ky; ds mDr vkns”k esa fdlh izdkj dk gLr{ksi djuk fof/k laxr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA Qyr% tekcanh dh fLFkfr rRdky ;Fkkor~ j[kus dk vkns”k ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa bl dk;Zokgh dks LFkfxr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa vfHkys[k dks cUn fd;k tkrk gSA** 3. The said finding of the appellate authority has been affirmed by the respondent Collector under the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made diverse submissions to assail the correctness of the order passed by the respondent Circle Officer. It has been contended that the same is anchored on a report which is antedated. She, however, admits that as found by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, a suit is pending in relation to the subject land between the parties in the Court below. It has been contended that the same is anchored on a report which is antedated. She, however, admits that as found by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, a suit is pending in relation to the subject land between the parties in the Court below. Learned counsel further submits that in the impugned orders, the Revenue authorities have recorded certain finding touching the title of the parties over the subject land which may cause prejudice to the petitioner. On perusal of the materials on record, it appears that a suit between the parties filed by the petitioner is pending in the Court vide Title Suit No. 249 of 2010. 5. This Court, in that view of the matter, without interfering with the order(s) impugned in this writ application, would observe that mutation of the name of the parties in relation to the subject land shall abide by the decision to be taken in the pending Title Suit. Any finding touching the title of the parties over the subject land, in that event, shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner. 6. The application stands disposed of.