Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1824 (JHR)

Khairul Shekh v. State of Jharkhand

2025-09-04

RAJESH KUMAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : RAJESH KUMAR, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “for grant of an appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari or an order or direction for quashing part of an order dated 1/7/2023 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Mutation Revision No. 04 of 2022-23 (Annexure- 4) whereby, while setting aside the order dated 5/4/2022 passed by the respondent no. 3 in Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 23 of 2020-21 (Annexure- 3), affirmed the order dated 7/12/2020 passed by the respondent no. 4 in Mutation Case No. 5038 R27/2020-21 (Annexure- 2) in respect of Plot No. 230 under Khata No. 41 in Mouza- Chandrapara in favour of the respondent no. 5 and 6 and for an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondent no. 4 to restore Jamabandi created in favour of the petitioners in respect of Plot No. 230 and to accept rent from them and for any other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 2. The description of the land is as follows:- “Land measuring an area of 12 Katha 14 Dhur being portion of Plot No.230 under Khata No.41 in Mouza-Chandrapara in the district of Pakur” 3. Now, the dispute has been confined to the Plot No.230 under Khata No.41 only. 4. It is an admitted case of the parties that the mutation with regard to the Plot No.230 stands in the name of Torab Ali and Nesab Shekh who are common ancestor of the parties. 5. For the change of the Mutation (Dakhil- Khariz), a proceeding has been initiated at the instance of private respondent nos.5 & 6. They have claimed mutation on the basis of ‘Hiba’ granted in favour of the private respondents in the year 1994. It has been claimed by the petitioners that they have not received any notice and without considering the claim of the petitioner the order has been passed in favour of the private respondent Nos.5 and 6. 6. Being aggrieved an appeal has been preferred numbered as Revenue Misc. Appeal No.23 of 2020-21 which has been disposed of vide order dated 05.04.2022 making observation that the petitioners are in possession of the property and as such the mutation granted to the private respondents is bad in law. 7. 6. Being aggrieved an appeal has been preferred numbered as Revenue Misc. Appeal No.23 of 2020-21 which has been disposed of vide order dated 05.04.2022 making observation that the petitioners are in possession of the property and as such the mutation granted to the private respondents is bad in law. 7. Being aggrieved, a revision has been filed by the private respondent Nos.5 & 6 that has been numbered as Mutation Revision No.04 of 2022-23 and the Revisional Authority has passed the order and the relevant portion of the same is quoted hereinbelow:- 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record, it is quite clear that the dispute is only with regard to the Plot No.230 and the Mutation register contains the name of Torab Ali and Neshab Shekh which are common ancestor of both the parties. The petitioners have made their claim on the basis of inheritance while the private respondents are claiming on the basis of ‘Hiba’ granted in the year 1994. 9. Thus, there is a genuine dispute between the parties and this dispute cannot be resolved by the Revenue Authority. Both, the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority have found that the petitioners are in possession of the property. Since there is a serious dispute of title and possession, as such the same cannot be resolved by the Revenue Authority. Accordingly, all the orders with regard to Plot No.230 are, hereby, set aside and the parties are at liberty to work out their remedies in accordance with law and the authorities are directed to act as per the law. 10. In view of above discussion and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.