Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1692 of 2005 ====================================================== Setu Bandh Pandey, son of Sri Bhusma Dutt Pandey, resident of Village Janardanpur, Police Station Durgawati, District Kaimur ( Bihar) .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Collelctor, kaimur (Bhabhua) 2. The Collector, Kaimur ( Bhabhua) 3. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Mohania ( Kaimur) 4. Anchaladhikari, Mohania 5. Sheo Jate Tiwary, son of late Badri Nath Tiwary 6. Binod Tiwary, son of Sheojati Tiwary, Both 5 and 6 residents of village Kathej, Police Station Mohania, District Kaimur ====================================================== .... .... Respondent/s Appearance :
Legal Reasoning
either by a civil court of competent jurisdiction or by this Court in the pending First Appeal No. 814 of 1995, status quo, as obtaining today, over the lands under dispute shall be maintained by the parties. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent
Arguments
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Radha Mohan Pandey, Advocate For the Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr. Ram Das Singh, A.C. to S.C. 12 For the Respondents 5 and 6 : Mr. Chandra Moleshwar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 11 25-07-2013 Heard the parties. The present proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of a mutation proceeding under the provisions of The Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 ( in short ‘1973 Act’). The claim of right, title and possession of the petitioner over the lands under dispute is based on a registered deed of gift dated 20.12.1961 executed by one Genda Kuer and 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.1692 of 2005 (11) dt.25-07-2013 2 / 4 Yashoda Kuer, whereas the contesting respondent Nos. 5 and 6, who are father and son respectively, are also laying their claim of right, title and possession over the lands under dispute on the basis of a will executed by Yashoda Kuer on 9.2.1982. When the petitioner filed an application for mutation under the provisions of 1973 Act, then that was allowed by an order dated 20.1.1997 (Annexure-1) passed by the respondent Anchaladhikari, Mohania, in Mutation Case No. 892 of 1996-97. The respondent nos. 5 and 6, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 20.1.1997 passed in the aforesaid Mutation Case No. 892 of 1996-97, preferred an appeal bearing Mutation Appeal No. 59 of 1997-98, which was allowed by the respondent D.C.L.R., Mohania by an order dated 28.3.1998 (Annexure-2) and the order passed by the respondent Circle Officer, Mohania was set aside on the ground of pendency of a Probate case filed by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 with respect to a deed of will executed in their favour. Revision case filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the respondent D.C.L.R. has been rejected by the impugned order dated 13.8.2004 ( Annexure-3) passed by the respondent District Collector, Kaimur ( Bhabhua) in Mutation Revision Case No. 1 of 1998-99 on the ground that the will has been probated by a court of competent jurisdiction in favour of the private respondents. After having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner as also respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are claiming their right, title and possession over the lands under dispute on the basis of a registered deed of gift and a deed of will respectively executed by one and same person, namely, Yashoda Kuer. The claims of the 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.1692 of 2005 (11) dt.25-07-2013 3 / 4 petitioner vis-a-vis respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are basically the claims of right and title over the lands under dispute on the basis of their respective registered deed of gift vis-a-vis a deed of will. The validity and correctness of registered deed of gift or a deed of will cannot be effectively decided by the Revenue Authorities under the provisions of 1973 Act and the same can be appropriately decided only by a civil court of competent jurisdiction. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that now, probate case filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 with respect to the deed of will has been rejected by the civil court Kaimur at Bhabhua against which First Appeal No. 814 of 1995 has been filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6, in which the petitioner is also a party and the matter is still sub-judice before this Court in the aforesaid First Appeal. In the considered opinion of this Court, unless the claim of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on the basis of aforesaid registered deed of gift and deed of will is finally adjudicated upon in the aforesaid First Appeal No. 814 of 1995 or the claim of right, title and possession is conclusively decided in any other separate suit pending or to be filed by either party before a civil court, the claim of mutation of either party can not be allowed at this stage. Since the issue of validity and correctness of aforesaid deed of will is sub-judice before this Court, no useful purpose will be served in remitting the matter back for fresh decision by the authorities under the 1973 Act. For the reasons recorded above the order dated 20.1.1997 (Annexure-1) passed by the respondent Anchaladhikari, Mohania, the order dated 28.3.1998 (Annexure-2) passed by the 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.1692 of 2005 (11) dt.25-07-2013 4 / 4 respondent D.C.L.R., Mohania, as also the impugned revisional order dated 13.8.2004 (Annexure-3) passed by the respondent District Collector, Kaimur( Bhabhua) are hereby set aside and claims of mutation of the parties over the lands under dispute shall be taken up for consideration only after final decision either in the aforesaid pending First Appeal No. 814 of 1995 with respect to the deed of will executed in favour of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 or after final judgment and decree passed by any civil court of competent jurisdiction in a separate civil suit to be filed by either party. In the meantime, till any contrary order is passed
Decision
indicated above, but there shall be no order as to costs. Kanth/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)