Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 123 (JHR)

Chakradhari Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2014-01-20

N.N.TIWARI

body2014
ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :- (i) For quashing order dated 13.10.2010 passed by the Circle Officer, Baghmara in Mutation Case No. 503(IX)/2010-11 whereby the prayer for mutation of the land appertaining to Khata No. 54, Kheshra No. 127/499, Area 0.08 Acres of Mouza Machiyara, P.S. Mahuda, District Dhanbad has been rejected. (ii) For quashing the order dated 25.04.2011 passed in Mutation Appeal No. 22/2010-11 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad, whereby the petitioner's appeal was dismissed and (iii) For quashing the order dated 10.02.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad in Mutation Revision No. 01/2011, whereby the petitioner's revision has been dismissed. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner purchased land of Khata No. 54, Khesra No. 127/499, area 0.08 acres of Mouza Machyara, P.S. Mahuda, District Dhanbad by virtue of registered sale deed dated 10.06.2010 from Chapla Devi wife of late Dhirendra Nath Chatterjee. In the Revenue Record-Register-II Jamabandi in respect of the said land was running in the name of the vendor Chapla Devi. Before the said transfer the petitioner's vendor was in peaceful possession of the said land. After purchasing the land, the petitioner came in peaceful possession of the land and applied for mutation of his name. By order dated 13.10.2010, Circle Officer, Baghmara rejected the petitioner's petition. The Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority also upheld the said order. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the said impugned orders are wholly arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner's prayer for mutation has been rejected on the ground that the land in question was recorded as 'Gair-abad' in the revisional survey record and that the petitioner has not produced the Zamindari rent receipt and the return filed by the ex-landlord. 4. Learned counsel submitted that when the petitioner's vendor has been recorded as raiyat in the revenue record and rent receipts have issued on accepting rent, rejection of the petitioner's prayer for mutation, on the ground that the petitioner has not produced the Zamindari rent receipt and the return filed by the ex-landlord, is wholly arbitrary and contrary to law. 5. Learned Standing Counsel (Land & Ceiling) appearing on behalf of the respondents faced with the said admitted position and entry in Register-II, could not legally support the impugned order, though the counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents opposing the writ petition. 5. Learned Standing Counsel (Land & Ceiling) appearing on behalf of the respondents faced with the said admitted position and entry in Register-II, could not legally support the impugned order, though the counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents opposing the writ petition. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances on record, I find that it is an admitted position that the name of petitioner's vendor has been running in Jamabandi in respect of the land in question. After transfer of the land in favour of the petitioner by virtue of the Registered Sale deed, the petitioner is entitled to be mutated in place of vendor. Rejection of the petitioner's prayer for mutation on the ground that he has not produced the return filed by the ex-landlord and the rent receipt issued by him is wholly irrelevant. 7. In the matter of mutation, the scope of inquiry is very limited. The Revenue Officer has to see whether there is a transfer of land by way of any mode of conveyance, succession or partition and whether the name of the vendor or his predecessor-in-interest has been running in the revenue record/Register-II as also that whether the person claiming mutation is in possession of the land. In the instant case, the Revenue Authorities have admitted at all stages and also in their counter affidavit that the petitioner's vendor's name has been running in the Jamabandi in respect of the land in question maintained by the Anchal Office. The transfer made by the vendor by virtue of registered sale deed has not been disputed by the respondents. 8. Thus, rejection of the petitioner's prayer on the ground that he has not produced the Zamindari receipt and Return filed by the ex-landlord, is wholly unjustified and arbitrary and contrary to law. 9. In view the above discussion, the order of learned Circle Officer, Baghmara dated 13.10.2010, order of Learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad passed in Mutation Appeal No. 22/2010-11 dated 25.04.2011, as also the order dated 10.02.2012 passed in Revision No. 01/2011 by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad are quashed. 10. The matter is remitted to the Circle Officer, Baghmara for disposal of the petitioner's mutation application in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.