The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.2112 of 2014 ---- Pradip Sao, Son of Tapeshwar Sao, resident of Village Rajguru, P.O. & P.S.Balumath, District-Latehar …. …. Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand Additional Collector, Latehar Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Latehar Circle Officer, Balumath, P.O & P.S. Balumath, District Latehar Santosh Prasad, S/o Late Ramanand Sao, resident of Village Rajguru, P.O. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. & P.S Balumath, District-Latehar 6. 7. P.O. & P.S Balumath, District-Latehar ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- Kesho Sao, Son of Late Sibba Sao Puja Devi, wife of Pradeep Sao, nos.6 and 7 residents of Village Rajguru, …. …. Respondents For the Petitioner For the Resp.-State For the Resp. No.5 30/Dated: 20th August, 2024
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Adv. : Mr. Ankit Kumar, AC to S.C-I : Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Adv. ---- 1. 2. Heard the parties. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 03.02.2011 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Latehar in Misc. Case No.10 of 2009-10 (Annexure-3) whereby, mutation of the petitioner has been cancelled without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. 3. The above order has been challenged by filing an appeal being Misc. Appeal No.08 of 2011-12 (Annexure-4) which has been dismissed by the Additional Collector, Latehar vide order dated 23.09.2013 and as such, both orders have been impugned in the present writ petition. 4. The description of land is as follows:- “Measuring an area of 28 decimals, plot no.185, Khata No.28 situated at Village Rajguru, P.O. & P.S. Balumath, District-Latehar” 5. From the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it appears that the land, in question, has been purchased by the wife of the present petitioner through registered sale deed No.439 dated 01.03.2007. (i) The respondent no.5 namely, Ramanand Sao (now dead) on 09.04.2007 has filed a petition under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, before LRDC, Latehar being L.C Case No.01/2007-08. (ii) A cancellation deed No.752 dated 13.04.2007 has been prepared by the vendor, who has executed the sale deed No.439 dated 01.03.2007. (iii) The sale deed no.439 dated 01.03.2007 has also been challenged by filing a Title suit being Title Suit No.12 of 2008. 6. It further appears that vide judgment and decree dated 01.10.2008 and 12.11.2008 respectively, the said sale deed has been cancelled on the ground that money could not paid by the wife of the present petitioner. In the meantime, final order has been passed on 19.02.2007 by the LRDC, Latehar in L.C. Case No.01/2007- 08, declaring the pre-emption right of respondent No.5. 7. On the strength of above declaration, the sale deed has been entered between the State and the respondent no.5 vide sale deed No.318 dated 07.02.2008. 8. Now, some twists are in the factual matrix of the present case, which is as follows:- (a) On 13.04.2007, a cancellation deed has been executed by the vendor, cancelling the sale deed No.439 of the petitioner’s wife dated 01.03.2007. (b) A fresh sale deed No.778 dated 18.04.2007 has been executed in favour of the present petitioner. 9. The present petitioner got his name mutated on the strength of above sale deed vide Mutation Case No.343 of 2007-2008 vide order dated 27.08.2008. 10. It further appears that the respondent no.5 has filed an appeal being Mutation Appeal No.15 of 2008 against the above order of mutation. During pendency of the appeal, a miscellaneous petition has been filed before the DCLR, Latehar, which has been numbered as Mutation Appeal No.10 of 2009-10, in which, cancelling the mutation of the petitioner the name of respondent no.5 has been entered into the registered deed. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds:-
Decision
(i) The impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction as the appeal was pending. (ii) The above order has been passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. Page | 2 W.P. (C) No.2112 of 2014 (iii) The petitioner is still in possession of the land and as such, the mutation could not have been cancelled. 12. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner’s counsel has appeared in the said proceedings by filing Vakalatnama and as such, it cannot be said to be ex-parte order. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 has submitted that it is nothing, but misuse of the process of the Court. A person cannot be given relief for committing fraud with the law. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that a sale deed No.439 with regard to the impugned land has been executed on 01.03.2007. The said sale deed has been challenged by filing Title Suit being Title Suit No.12 of 2008 and finally, it has been cancelled by a decree of the Court dated 12.11.2008. The above sale deed has been cancelled on the basis that no money has been transacted between the parties. 15. It further appears that it has not been disclosed in the Title Suit that second sale deed No.778 dated 18.04.2007 has been executed in the name of the husband. It also appears that the order has been passed in Title Suit No.12 of 2008, the pre- emption order has been passed on 17.09.2007 and the sale deed No.318 has also been executed on 07.02.2008. 16. The above sequence of fact clearly suggests that the smartness has been played by the petitioner. It is nothing, but misuse of the process of the Court and a person playing with the procedure and law cannot be given relief. The mutation has been claimed on the strength of the sale deed in the present case by the petitioner and there is valid sale deed executed by the State in favour of the respondent No.5. It is a case of transfer of mutation on the strength of sale deed. 17. In view of the peculiar factual matrix of the case, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby, dismissed. Raja/- Uploaded (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Page | 3 W.P. (C) No.2112 of 2014