Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1295 (JHR)

Bela Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2014-12-22

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner herein has sought quashing of the following orders: (i) Order dated 13.10.2010 passed by the Circle Officer, Baghmara in connection with the case no. 501 (IX)/2010-2011 (Annexure-1) whereunder, the mutation application filed by the petitioner in relation to the land situate in Mouza Machiyara Thana No. 332, Khata No. 54, Kheshra No. 127/499 having an area of 1.32 acres of land, has been rejected. (ii) Order dated 25.04.2011 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad in Mutation Appeal No. 24/10-11 whereunder, petitioner's mutation appeal has been rejected. (iii) Order dated 10.02.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad in Revision No. 3/2011, whereby petitioner's revision application has been dismissed. 3. It transpires from the pleadings on record that the petitioner is the vendee of the aforesaid piece of land sold by one Dhirendra Nath Chatterjee through Sale Deed No. 8182 dated 10.06.2010. Petitioner has indicated devolution of title upon Dhirendra Nath Chatterjee in the averments made in the writ petition. It is her contention that her vendor used to pay rent regularly to the authorities and Jamabandi was opened in their name. Pursuant to the purchase of the said land, petitioner made an application for mutation of plots in her name which has been rejected by the impugned orders passed by the Circle Officer, Baghmara, L.R.D.C., Dhanbad and Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner straightaway has referred to the two judgments dated 20.01.2014 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Chakradhari Mahto vs. State of Jharkhad & Others, W.P. (C) No. 7614 of 2012 and W.P. (C) No. 7615 of 2012. These judgments are brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit and they are in respect of the same and similar orders passed in the case of the said petitioner Chakradhari Mahto by the Circle Officer, Baghmara, L.R.D.C., Dhanbad and Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad in mutation application, mutation appeal and revision preferred by him for mutation of his plots purchased by Registered Sale Deed from the vendor Dhirendra Nath Chatterjee and his wife. It is submitted that perusal of the orders passed in mutation appeal by the L.R.D.C., Dhanbad would show that by the common order dated 25.04.2011, all the three mutation appeals were dismissed on the same grounds by the same respondent. It is submitted that perusal of the orders passed in mutation appeal by the L.R.D.C., Dhanbad would show that by the common order dated 25.04.2011, all the three mutation appeals were dismissed on the same grounds by the same respondent. It is therefore submitted that the present writ petition which in fact is in seriatum to other two writ petitions, may also be allowed in the manner the said writ petitions (WPC Nos. 7614 of 2012 & 7615 of 2012) have been allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 20.01.2014, as there are no distinguishable features in the present case. 5. Learned counsel for the State has appeared and filed their counter affidavit taking the plea that a partition suit is pending between the family members of the vendor. Other pleas have also been taken therein in support of the orders impugned. However, learned Standing Counsel (Land & Ceiling) Mr. Vikash Kishore Prasad, upon perusal of the judgments rendered in the case of Chakradhari Mahto (supra), submits that if the same issue has already been decided by the common orders earlier in respect of other petitioner being aggrieved by the common orders passed by the respondents, there is no distinguishable features, so far as the present case is concerned. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and having considered the rival submissions of the parties including the judgments rendered in the case of Chakradhari Mahto (Supra) by the learned Single Judge, it appears that the petitioner is also entitled to the similar relief as orders impugned herein are also of the same date and in respect of the different lands purchased by the present petitioner and other petitioner from Dhirendra Nath Chaterjee and his wife. It further appears that the said petitioner Chakradhari Mahto is the husband of the present petitioner. Therefore, the impugned orders contained at annexure 1, 2 & 3 are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the Circle Officer, Baghmara, Dhanbad (Respondent No. 4) for disposal of the petitioner's mutation application in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the judgment passed in the case of Chakradhari Mahto (supra).