The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- W.P. (C) No. 401 of 2024 ---- 1.Lal Swatantra Nath Shahdeo, aged about 75 years son of late Chunnu Lal Ambika Prasad Nath Shahdeo 2.Lal Nitesh Nath Shahdeo, aged about 44 years 3.Lal Rahul Nath Shahdeo, aged about 39 years Sl.no.2 and 3 both sons of late Lal Ran Vijay Nath Shahdeo All resident of Mohalla Aryapuri, Ratu Road, PO Hehal, PS Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi .... Petitioners -- Versus -- 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Deputy Commissioner Latehar, PO and PS Latehar, District Latehar 3.Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Latehar, PO and PS Latehar, District Latehar 4.Circle Officer, Latehar, PO and PS Latehar, District Latehar
Legal Reasoning
5.Rekha Devi @ Rekha Gupta, aged about 48 years wife of Sri Sunil Kumar, resident of Shaheed Chowk, Main Road, Latehar, PO and PS Latehar, District Latehar .... Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :- Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate --- Mr. Pratyush Shounikya, Advocate Mr. Shubham Mayank, Advocate For the State :- A.C. to G.P.V For the Respondent No.5 :- Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kr. Rahul, Advocate Mr. Rishav Ranjan, Advocate ---- 6/18.09.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned 1 W.P. (C) No. 401 of 2024 counsel for the respondent State and the learned counsel for the respondent no.5. 2. The prayer in this petition has been made for quashing of the order dated 10.04.2023 passed in Mutation Revision Case No.24 of 2022 by which the Deputy Commissioner Latehar has directed to maintain the Mutation Order passed by the Circle Officer, Latehar in Miscellaneous Case No.14 of 2016-17. The further prayer in this petition has been made for direction upon the respondents to take a decision for mutation only after the decision taken in Title Suit No.65 of 2018 pending in the court of learned Sub Judge, Latehar. 3. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the land in plot no.7 (old), plot no.225 (old) having total area 1.97 acres corresponding to new khata no.8, plot no.407 having total area 1.84 acres at Jognatarn, Matnag, in the District of Latehar is recorded in the name of late Chunni Lal Ambika Prasad Nath Shahdeo. Late Chunni Lal Ambika Prasad Nath Shahdeo died leaving behind three sons namely , (i) Lal Ran Vijay Nath Shahdeo, (ii) Lal Jaiprakash Nath Shahdeo and (iii) Lal Swatantra Nath Shahdeo. He submits that the property in question as stated in the writ petition along with other lands owned and possessed by late Chunni Lal Ambika Prasad Nath Shahdeo. The property in question was jointly inherited by the heirs (three sons as disclosed). He submits that in absence of any partition of the joint inherited property, one of the co-sharer namely Lal Jai Prakash Nath Shahdeo (second son) sold the entire land under Khata No.8(new) (Old khata no.7), Plot No.407 (New) (Old plot no.232) having total area of 1.84 acres/ 1.97 acres at Jagnatarn, Matnag, Latehar to M/s Atlas Agro Forestry Pvt. Ltd. by registered sale deed dated 28.07.1994 2 W.P. (C) No. 401 of 2024 and thereafter the said land was mutated in the name of M/s Atlas Agro Forestry Pvt. Ltd in Mutation Case No.72/1995-96. He submits that the Jamaandi of the entire land in question was running in the name of recorded tenant of late Chunni Lal Ambika Prasad Nath Shahdeo and in spite of that mutation is done in favour of M/s M/s Atlas Agro Forestry Pvt. Ltd. He submits that the petitioners’ legal heirs have come to know about transfer of land by registered deed of sale as well as the decision taken in Mutation Case No.72 of 1995-96 when one Rekha Devi tried to take possession of land in question on the basis of sale deed no.336 dated 15.02.2014 as well as on the basis of Mutation Case No.217/2014- 15 as the same was subsequently sold by M/s Atlas Agro Forestry Pvt. Ltd to Rekha Devi and he submits that a proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C was initiated and possession of the petitioners were found which was challenged before revisional court as well as before this Court and travelled upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court and possession of the petitioners was affirmed. He submits that in this background, the L.R.D.C. has rightly passed the order to wait for the out-come of the pending suit, however, the Deputy Commissioner has directed to continue Jamabandi as directed by the Circle Officer in Mutation Case No.14 of 2016-17. He submits that when the suit is already pending the Deputy Commissioner has unnecessarily passed the said order and LRDC order was correct one. He submits that in view of that this petition may kindly be allowed. 4. Per contra, Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.5 submits that Rekha Devi @ Rekha Gupta the respondent no.5 has purchased the land pertaining to Khata No.7(new khata no.8), Old Plot No.232 (New Plot No.407), area 1.97 3 W.P. (C) No. 401 of 2024 acres having boundary North-NH 75, Ranchi -Daltonganj Road, South- Plot No.234, East-Forest Land, West-Forest land by way of registered sale deed no.338/336 dated 15.2.2014 from M/s Atlas Agro Forestry Pvt. Ltd. represented through its Managing Director Chandra Bhushan Singh. He submits that thereafter the name of respondent no.5 was mutated in Mutation Case No.217/ 2014-15 for the land in question. He submits that the same was already recorded in the name of respondent no.5 by order of the Circle Officer in Misc. Case No.14/2016-17 and the petitioners have challenged the same before the L.R.D.C in Mutation Appeal No.1/2018-2019 and the learned L.R.D.C has wrongly passed the said order saying to wait for the out-come of the suit. He submits that respondent no.5 was also not made party when the order was passed. He submits that in the pending suit the respondent no.5 is not a party and now she has been made party in the pending suit in the year 2024. He submits that the learned Deputy Commissioner has rightly passed the order considering that the Jamabandi was already there and the deed is not cancelled and the deed has been executed in favour of the respondent no.5. 5. In view of the above, considering that the respondent no.5 has purchased the land in question by two deeds and pursuant to that, mutation was made in favour of the respondent no.5 which was challenged by the petitioners before the L.R.D.C and the L.R.D.C has passed the order to wait till the out-come of the pending suit. The Deputy Commissioner has turned down the same considering that the sale deed is in favour of the respondent no.5 which was not challenged before the competent court and the jamabandi was also created in favour of the respondent no.5. The Court finds that so far as the dispute 4 W.P. (C) No. 401 of 2024 in question is concerned, that can be decided by the competent court of civil jurisdiction and for that the suit is already pending. So far as the mutation is concerned the Deputy Commissioner has rightly passed the order considering that the mutation in favour of the respondent no.5 is already mutated in the year 2014. It is further well settled that a long jamabandi cannot be cancelled and if such dispute is there, only the competent court of civil jurisdiction is competent to pass such order. 6. In view of above, no case of interference is made out, and as such, W.P.(C) No.401 of 2024 is dismissed. 7. It is made clear that so far as the pending suit is concerned, that will be decided on its own merit without prejudice to this order, as this order has been passed only with regard to mutation between the parties. 8. For any further interim relief, the petitioners are required to move before the competent court of civil jurisdiction. 7.
Decision
Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/,, 5 W.P. (C) No. 401 of 2024