Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 16 (JHR)

Amrita Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2015-01-06

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
Order Seeking quashing of order dated 23.05.2012 in Mutation Case No. 625 R/27/2012-13, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner claiming himself a purchaser with respect to land comprised in Khata No. 194, Plot No. 3714, sub-Plot No. 3714/A, measuring 12 decimals through registered saledeed dated 13.11.2009 submitted an application for mutation in her favour however, the same was refused vide order dated 23.05.2012. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5140 of 2011 which was disposed of vide order dated 17.02.2012 directing the Circle Officer respondent no. 3 to dispose of the petitioner's application, preferably within three months. The petitioner again moved this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7282 of 2012 however, the same was dismissed in default. Another purchaser namely, Salil Kumar also made an application for mutation and his mutation application was allowed and rent was accepted. Similarly mutation application of another purchaser namely, Smt. Vidya Sinha has also been allowed however, the application for mutation preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondent State of Jharkhand raises a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under the provision of Bihar Tenants' Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though, the petitioner submitted fresh representation on 19.05.2012 annexing order of the High Court and other documents, the impugned order rejecting the mutation application of the petitioner has been passed in a mechanical manner. The impugned order is a formatted order as would appear from Annexure5 itself. It is further submitted that though, vide order dated 19.05.2012, a report from Halka Karamchari was sought by the Circle Officer, ignoring mandatory provision of the Bihar Tenants' Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, an order has been passed by the Circle Officer on 05.06.2012. No notice was issued to the petitioner and from the order dated 05.06.2012 it is apparent that the Circle Officer has failed to notice even the order passed by this Court. It is further submitted that since, the order passed by the Circle Officer is patently illegal inspite of alternative remedy available to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to approach this Court by filing the writ petition. 6. It is further submitted that since, the order passed by the Circle Officer is patently illegal inspite of alternative remedy available to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to approach this Court by filing the writ petition. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that from the impugned order dated 05.06.2012 it appears that the land in question is recorded as “Gairmajrua Malik” in the Revisional Survey Khatian and therefore, Halka Karamchari and the Circle Inspector after making enquiry recommended that the application for mutation cannot be accepted. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 8. Referring to the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that in identically situated cases in which the purchaser from the same vendor made application for mutation and their applications have been allowed vide Annexure 6 and Annexure 7, I am of the opinion that in view of the report of the Halka Karamchari and Circle Inspector which is referred to in the impugned order dated 05.06.2012, the petitioner cannot contend that her application for mutation has been arbitrarily rejected. Merely because earlier orders in favour of the other purchasers granting mutation have been passed, the report of Halka Karamchari and Circle Inspector in this case could not have been ignored by the Circle Officer. Though, the reports in other cases have not been brought on record, even if it is assumed that nature of land in these cases is identical to the nature of the land in question, that is, “Gairmajrua Malik”, the petitioner cannot insist that her mutation application also should have been allowed because if the land in other cases are also “Gairmajrua Malik”, those orders also would be illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no individual notice was issued to the petitioner and contrary to the provision under the Act, the impugned order dated 05.06.2012 has been passed. I find no substance in the contention. Section 14 provides that 15 days notice should be given and the propose of such notice is to invite objection to the application seeking mutation. Since, the petitioner herself is the applicant there is no question of issuing notice to the petitioner. I find no substance in the contention. Section 14 provides that 15 days notice should be given and the propose of such notice is to invite objection to the application seeking mutation. Since, the petitioner herself is the applicant there is no question of issuing notice to the petitioner. The notice in the present case was issued on 19.05.2012 and impugned order has been passed on 05.06.2012 and therefore, the impugned order has been passed 15 days after the notice was published. I do not find contravention of any of the provisions of the Act in the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision in “State of Jharkhand & Others Vs. Arjun Das” reported in 2005 (1) JLJR 1 . I find that in the said case the Hon'ble Division Bench has observed as under: “17. From bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is manifest that before passing order of mutation the Circle Officer is required to give notice to the person whose name is running in the revenue record and also general notice inviting objections. On receipt of objection the Circle Officer shall give opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence for the purpose of ascertaining which of the claimant for the occupation of the property may be put in occupation of it with great confidence for the recovery of revenue being made feasible. In our considered opinion, therefore, the Circle Officer is not supposed to recognized possession of a person on the basis of a void and illegal sale deed as against a rightful owner who is member of tribal community. It is not in all cases but in cases where at the first hand a person purchased the property from a tribal person in contravention of the provisions of law then it would be unjust and improper to enter the name of the purchaser in revenue record by deleting name of the tribal persons.............” 9. Admittedly, the petitioner's name is not running in the Revenue Records. The report of Circle Inspector discloses that the land in question is recorded as “Gairmajrua Malik” in Revisional Survey Records. The case relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner supports the case of the respondents. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to various informations sought through Right to Information Act, 2005 and communications made thereunder. The report of Circle Inspector discloses that the land in question is recorded as “Gairmajrua Malik” in Revisional Survey Records. The case relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner supports the case of the respondents. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to various informations sought through Right to Information Act, 2005 and communications made thereunder. In my opinion those communications are irrelevant for the purpose of testing the correctness of the impugned order dated 05.06.2012. 11. In view of above discussion, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.