The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Civil Writ Jurisdiction) W.P. (C) No.2607 of 2022 ---- 1. Md. Sabir Hussain aged about 39 years S/o Md. Manohar Hussain 2. Md. Mansoor Ali aged about 45 years S/o Late Md. Nasir 3. Arshul Majeed aged about 35 years S/o Late Md. Nasir 4. Jawed Jafar aged about 33 years S/o Late Md. Nasir 5. Saeed Zaffar aged about 30 years S/o Late Md. Nasir All resident of village Madrsa Road Sisai, P.O. + P.S. - Sisai, District-Gumla. …. …. Versus Petitioner(s) 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, P.O. + P.S. & District – Gumla. 3. Deputy Commissioner Land Reforms, Gumla, P.O. + P.S. & District – Gumla. 4. Circle Officer, Gumla, P.O. + P.S. – Sisai, District – Gumla. 5. Chhedan Oraon S/o Lagnoo Oraon, resident of village Kudra, P.O. + P.S. – Sisai, District – Gumla. …. …. Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Petitioner(s) For the State For the Resp. No.5 07/Dated: 21st August, 2024 : Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. : Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V Ms. P. Priyamvada, A.C. to G.P.-V : Mrs. Anjana Kumari, Adv. ---- 1. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “ For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 28/4/2022 (Annexure-7) passed by the respondent no.2 (Deputy Commissioner, Gumla) in Mutation Appeal No.41/2010-11 preferred by the respondent no.5 against the order dated 19/10/2010 passed by the respondent no.3 (Deputy Commissioner Land Reforms, Gumla) in Mutation Appeal No. 7/2010-11, whereby and where under the respondent no.2 has been pleased to allow the said Mutation Appeal No.41/2010-11 by setting aside the order dated 19/10/2010 passed by the respondent no.3 and directed the respondent no.4 (Circle Officer, Sisai) to hand over the possession appertaining to land Mouza Kudra, Khata No.145, Plot No.891, area 0.87 acres in favour of the respondent no.5 The petitioners further pray for quashing of the order dated 29-10-2009 (Annexure-4) passed by the respondent no.4 (Circle Officer, Sisai) in Mutation Case No.230R27/2009-10 whereby and where under the application for mutation of land Mouza Kudra, Khata No. 145, Plot No.891, area 0.87 acres filed by the petitioners has been rejected on the ground, the Khatiyani Raiyat is disputing over the land. And the petitioners further pray for issuance of direction upon the respondent no.4 to stay the further operation of the order impugned dated 28/4/2022 passed by the respondent no.2 in Mutation Appeal No.41/2010-11. And/or further prays for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions as your Lordships may fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.” 2. The description of the land is as follows:- “Land situated at Mouza Kudra, Khata No.145, Plot No.891, area 0.87 acres.” 3. The above land was recorded in the name of Sukhan Oraon in the year 1940. It has been claimed that a proceeding under Section 71-A of the CNT Act has been instituted which has been numbered as S.A.R. Case No.597 of 1976-1977 against Baleshwar Sahu. The said SAR Case has been dismissed vide order dated 29.11.1976. Thereafter, the land in question has been mutated in the name of Baleshwar Sahu vide Mutation Case No.4/1979-80 by the order dated 28.05.1979. 4. Further, Baleshwar Sahu had transferred the land in favour of the petitioner no.1 namely Sabir Hussain through registered sale deed no.2156 dated 28.08.2009. On the strength of the said registered sale deed, a Mutation Case No.230R27/2009- 10 had been initiated and in the said mutation case claim of the petitioner no.1 had been rejected vide order dated 29.10.2009. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner no.1 had preferred an appeal being Mutation Appeal No.7 of 2010-11 before the Deputy Commissioner Land Reforms, Gumla and the same had been disposed of vide order dated 19.10.2010 allowing the appeal in favour of petitioner no.1. Accordingly, the land in question had been mutated in the name of the petitioner and correction slip had been issued and the name of the petitioner had been entered into the register and the rent receipt has been issued thereafter. 6. It appears that Respondent No.5 namely Chhedan Oraon, being aggrieved, with the above order dated 19.10.2010 had preferred a Mutation Revision (wrongly it has been numbered as Mutation Appeal No.41/2010-11) before the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla and the said Mutation Revision had been allowed vide order dated 28.04.2022 by setting aside the order dated 19.10.2010 and the Circle Officer, Sisai had been directed to hand over the possession of the said property to Respondent No.5. Page | 2 W.P. (C) No.2607 of 2022 7. It further appears that Respondent No.5 had filed a Title Suit numbered as Title Suit No.17 of 2014 against the sons of Baleshwar Sahu as well as petitioner no.1 for declaration of right, title & interest and recovery of possession. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the background of above facts has submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla has converted mutation proceeding under the proceeding under Section 71-A of the CNT Act which is per se illegal. Further, it has been submitted that even the proceeding under Section 71-A of the CNT Act has been culminated in favour of the predecessor of the vendor of the present petitioner. It has also been submitted that in view of the title suit pending between the parties the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla cannot pass such an order. 9. In view of above factual matrix of the case and considering the fact that the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla has exercised power under Section 71-A of the CNT Act in the mutation proceeding which is per se illegal, the present writ
Decision
petition is, hereby, disposed of setting aside the impugned order dated 28.04.2022 (Annexure-7) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla in Mutation Appeal No.41/2010-11 and the impugned order dated 29.10.2009 (Annexure-4) passed by the Circle Officer, Sisai in Mutation Case No.230R27/2009-10. 10. 11. The parties are at liberty to work out his remedy in accordance with law. Since the matter is being taken up today, the interlocutory application being I.A. No.3883 of 2024 filed for early hearing has become infructuous. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed as infructuous. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Amar/- Uploaded Page | 3 W.P. (C) No.2607 of 2022