Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 925 (JHR)

Narayan Prajapati v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-04-25

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2019
JUDGMENT Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - Since similar issues are involved in both these writ petitions as such the same have been heard together, and now are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The whole dispute involved herein is for quashing the order of mutation passed in favour of the respondent No.4- Rajeshwari Devi. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that they are the actual title holder for that a title suit has been filed being Title Suit No.178 of 2005 in which the said Rajeshwari Devi is also one of the defendants. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the order of mutation has been passed on the basis of decree passed in the Partition Suit No.16/10 of 1988, wherein decree for partition has been passed and the said decree has been executed, in view thereof, the order or mutation has been passed by the revenue authority since there is serious dispute over the title for which the dispute is going on therefore, the revenue authority ought to have waited for the outcome of the Title Suit No.178 of 2005 but without doing so the order impugned has been passed, therefore, both the writ petitions have been filed. 5. On the other hand Mr. D.K. Prasad assisted by learned counsel for the private respondent No.4 and the State-respondent have jointly submitted that admittedly the petitioners are not co-sharers of the property in question rather they were claiming their title over the suit property. The further contention is that the order of mutation has been passed by the revenue authority after perusing the decree passed in Partition Suit No.16/10 of 1988 and even accepting the contention of the petitioner that he has filed a suit for declaration of right and title that cannot be a ground of not taking decision by the revenue authority, since the order of mutation has been taken in this case relying upon the decree passed by the competent court of civil jurisdiction in the Partition Suit No.16/10 of 1988 therefore, the same cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity. He further submits that since the title suit is going on, the order of mutation will ultimately depend upon the outcome of the Title Suit No.178 of 2005. 6. He further submits that since the title suit is going on, the order of mutation will ultimately depend upon the outcome of the Title Suit No.178 of 2005. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering their rival submissions and also going across the annexure appended thereto it is evident therefrom that the order of mutation has been passed by the Revenue Authority on the basis of decree passed in the Partition Suit No.16/10 of 1988 which was executed by the executing court. 7. The petitioner is disputing that the order passed by the revenue authority claiming to be a title holder of the said property and for that he has filed a title suit being Title Suit No.178 of 2005 which is lying pending. 8. This Court after appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners, is of the view that the order of mutation since does not confer any title over the property in question and the revenue authority basing upon the decree passed in the Partition Suit No.16/10 of 1988, has mutated the name in favour of the respective share-holder in whose favour the landed property has been partitioned, cannot be said to suffer any infirmity. 9. However it needs to refer herein that since the title over the property in question has been disputed by the petitioner and for that a Title Suit has been filed wherein the private respondents are also defendants, therefore, outcome of the said Title suit will ultimately govern the title over the property and its consequence, in view thereof, this Court, at this stage, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order for the reason stated above. 10. In view thereof, both these writ petitions are dismissed.