Patna High Court
Madhu Devi @ Madhu Motani & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 10 February, 2015
Author: Kishore Kumar Mandal
Bench: Kishore Kumar Mandal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2548 of 2015
===========================================================
1.Madhu Devi @ Madhu Motani, wife of late Ravi Kumar Motani
2. Aditya Saurabh, son of Late Ravi Kumar Motani.
3. Prachi Agrawal, Daughter of late Ravi Kumar Motani
All residents of Mohalla Lal Bazar, P.O.- Bettiah, P.S.- Bettiah (Town), District-
West Champaran.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah
3. The Additional Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah
4. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Bettiah, West Champaran.
5. The Circle Officer, Bettiah, West Champaran.
6. Renula Rajasthani, wife of late Purshottam Sharma, @ Vimal Rajasthani,
resident of Mohalla Lal Bazar, P.S.- Bettiah (Town), P.O.- Bettiah, District-
West Champaran
7. Rajesh Mani Tiwari, son of Shyamjee Mani Tiwari, resident of Mohalla-Shastri
Nagar, P.S.- Bettiah (Town), P.O.- Bettiah, District- West Champaran.
8. Dinesh Kumar Tiwari, son of late Kashi Nath Tiwary, resident of Mohalla Lal
Bazar, P.O.- Bettiah , P.S.- Bettiah (Town), District- West Champaran.
9. Ajay Kumar Upadhyay, son of Sri Shyam Sunder Upadhyay, resident of
Mohalla Lal Bazar, P.O.- Bettiah , P.S.- Bettiah (Town), District- West
Champaran.
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiv Kumar Dwivedy
For the Respondent/s : Mr. MITHILESH KUMAR PATHAK
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 10-02-2015
Heard the parties.
The petitioners after purchase of the subject land through
the legal heir and legal representatives of Kamli Devi who was
recorded as the jamabandidar in respect of the subject land made
application for mutation. It appears at the same time husband of the
respondent no. 6 also made an application for mutation claiming the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2548 of 2015 dt.10-02-2015 2
land on the basis of adoption as son by the grandson of the ex-
landlord namely Sowa Babu. The Circle Officer found discrepancy in
the revenue records referred the matter to the D.C.L.R. The D.C.L.R.
directed for taking steps as per the laid down procedure for mutation
of the name of the petitioners. Indisputably, both the parties filed
revision before the Additional Collector. The revision application
filed by the petitioner vide Mutation Revision Case No. 178 of 2009
was disposed of by order dated 18.2.2013 (Annexure-7)
observed/directed as under:-
"The learned DCLR directed Anchal Adhikari to
start process for deletion of Most. Kamli Devi's name
from jamabandi no. 184/175. No court has so far
passed final order for the deletion of her name from
above jamabandi. So long as jamabandi no. 184/175
continue to run in her name, transaction made by her
legal heirs will be considered for mutation. On the
other hand as the civil court declared adoption of
Jagmohan Prasad as null and void, hence any
transaction made by Jagmohan Prasad and his legal
heirs will not be considered for mutation and mutation
allowed on the basis of transferred made by Jagmohan
Prasad and his legal heirs earlier is set aside to the
findings as above. So far as the question of validity of
jamabandi of above mentioned land in the name of
Most. Kamli Devi is concerned, it is open for the
respondents and also for legal heirs of Sowababu
Marwari to challenge validity/genuineness of above
jamabandi in the court of Additional Collector and the
matter will be examined on merit independently and
separately."
It appears, in the meanwhile, the subject land was
transferred by the husband of the respondent no. 6 in favour of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2548 of 2015 dt.10-02-2015 3
respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9. The respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 filed an
application before the Bihar Land Tribunal situated under the Bihar
Land Tribunal Act, 2009 giving rise to B.L.T. Case No. 192 of 2013.
On a consideration of submissions of the parties, the Tribunal allowed
the said application and set aside the order of the Additional Collector
in Mutation Revision No. 178/2009-10 and restored the order dated
10.6.2008passed by the respondent D.C.L.R. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that admittedly the land was recorded in the name of Kamli Devi. The petitioners purchased the land from the heirs of Kamli Devi. The D.C.L.R. in his order (Annexure-5) found possession of the petitioners. In all fairness, the Authority ought to have allowed the claim of the petitioners as they had semblance of title together with actual physical possession thereof.
In my view, the dispute between the parties raises a serious question of title in respect of part of the suit land. Law is settled. Mutation in Register-II is for the purpose of realization of land rent. It neither creates nor extinguishes title. The petitioner has remedy of filing a suit before the Court of competent civil jurisdiction in respect of the suit land and get appropriate declaration including the order for setting aside the mutation which is to be made in favour of the private respondents.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2548 of 2015 dt.10-02-2015 4 Let the petitioner invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for resolution of the dispute in respect to the subject land. If any such suit is filed within a reasonable period of time, the findings/observations made in the order of the Additional collector (Annexure-7) as well as the Tribunal (Annexure-8) shall not accrue to the prejudice of the petitioners. The mutation order passed, if any, in the meanwhile shall also be subject to result of the suit.
The writ application is disposed of.
(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Pankaj/-
U