Jharkhand High Court
Ratikanta Giri & Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 4 August, 2017
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 5558 of 2006
1. Ratikanta Giri
2. Sachida Nanda Giri
3. Durga Nanda Giri
4. Rupchand Giri ..... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur
3. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ghatshila
4. Uma Shankar Bera (Minor)
5. Satyawan Bera (Minor)
6. Shiv Shankar Bera (Minor) ..... Respondents
-----
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioners: Mr. A.K.Sahani
For the Respondent Nos.1-3: Mr. J.C to S.C (L&C)
For the Respondent Nos.4-6: Mr. S.L.Agrawal
-----
06/04.08.2017The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.04.2006 passed by the respondent No.2 in Mutation Revision No. 88 of 2000 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) whereby the order dated 23.06.2000 passed by the respondent No.3 in Mutation Appeal No. 1 of 1997-98 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) has been affirmed.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the land under Khata No. 396, Plot Nos. 114 & 115, area-4 decimal, situated in Mouza-Kasharda, P.S-Bahragora, District-East Singhbhum (hereinafter referred to as 'the said land') was recorded in the R.S Record of Right in the name of one Satish Chandra Giri. An agreement to sell the said land was executed between Satish Chandra Giri and Rajendra Giri on 21.06.1967. When the sale deed was not executed as per the terms of the agreement, a suit for specific performance of contract of sale being Title Suit No. 266 of 1970 was filed and the same was decreed ex-parte on 23.03.1974. When the suit was pending for execution of the sale deed, Satish Chandra Giri sold the said land to the petitioners on 25.08.1981 and they got their names mutated in the Office of the Circle Officer, Baharagora vide Mutation Case Nos. 1/82-83 and 2/82-83. Pursuant to the order passed in Title Suit No. 266 of 1970, a sale deed was 2 executed on 28.11.1981 by the learned Munsif in favour of two widows of Late Rajendra Giri, namely, Shanti Bala Giri and Nitya Bala Giri. The widows of Late Rajendra Nath Giri sold the said land to the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 by way of registered sale deed dated 08.01.1990 and thereafter they applied for mutation of their names in Register-II, but the Circle Officer rejected their application observing that he is incompetent to cancel the Jamabandi running in the names of the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 filed appeal being Mutation Appeal No. 1/1997-98, which was allowed by the respondent No.3 (Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ghatshila) by holding that the sale deed executed pursuant to the order passed in title suit can only be legally recognized. Thereafter, the petitioners filed revision application being Mutation Revision No. 88 of 2000, which was also dismissed by the respondent No.2 (Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum) on 10.04.2006.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that a decree passed in the suit for specific performance of contract of sale does not create any interest in the property. It is further submitted that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principle of natural justice. The learned counsel further submits that the impugned order is passed in lack of jurisdiction, as while dealing with a mutation case, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had not been vested with the power of the competent Civil Court.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the Additional Deputy Commissioner is a Collector, who has got all the powers in respect of the revenue matters. It is further submitted that impugned order has been passed after following the principle of natural justice and the same is final in all respects. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law and the same is within the jurisdiction conferred 3 under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. From the facts of the case, it appears that the petitioners had purchased the said land on 25.08.1981 and thereafter Jamabandi was opened in their names vide Mutation Case No. 1/82-83 and 2/82-83. Pursuant to the order passed in Title Suit No. 266 of 1970, for the same land, another sale deed was executed on 28.11.1981 by the learned Munsif in the names of Shanti Bala Giri and Nitya Bala Giri in execution case. Shanti Bala Giri and Nitya Bala Giri again sold the said land to the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 on 08.01.1990 and thereafter they applied for mutation of their names before the Circle Officer. The petitioners made objection to the said application and vide order dated 25.04.1997, the Circle Officer refused to mutate their names. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 went in appeal before the respondent No.3, which was allowed vide order dated 23.06.2000 and the revision application of the petitioners was also dismissed by the respondent No.2 on 10.04.2006, which gives rise to the present writ petition.
6. For adjudication of present dispute, it would be appropriate to look into the power of revenue authority while dealing with the mutation proceeding.
7. In the case of Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, through its Commissioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in (2015) 16 SCC 689, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"13. It is settled that mutation does not confer any right and title in favour of any one or other, nor cancellation of mutation extinguishes the right and title of the rightful owner. Normally, the mutation is recorded on the basis of the possession of the land for the purposes of collecting revenue."
8. In the case of Mahabir Mahto & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in (2013) 1 JCR 571, a Division Bench of this court 4 has held as under:
"27. The question arises is that in a case where one party claims right adverse to the person whose name is recorded in the Continuous Khatian or Record of Rights whether he can move application for mutation."
"28. The scheme of the Act of 1973, as we have noticed from Sections 3 to 13, nowhere provides for it. Meaning thereby, any information under Sections 4 to 10 and on application under Sections 11 and 12 or upon report under Section 13, only the Anchal Adhikari can proceed to decide the application under Section 14. In Sections 3 to 13 and in Section 14, it is nowhere provided that any person who has any grievance against wrong entry in the Continuous Khatian and Record of Rights can submit an application for getting determination of his right, title and interest in the land vis-a-vis a recorded entry. We may recapitulate here that as per the duty cast upon the Anchal Adhikari, he is required to prepare and maintain Continuous Khatian and Tenants' Ledger Register by following the procedure as provided in sub-clause (1) of Section 3 itself and in other cases the Anchal Adhikari can get the information as provided under Sections 4 to 13 only."
"29. From the scheme of the above provisions it is clear that the application for mutation, obviously for alteration of the entries in the Continuous Khatian and Tenants' Ledger Register cannot be claimed by a person having totally adverse interest to the person whose name is entered in the revenue record and, therefore, the application filed for the entry of the names of the appellants with a claim that their source of right is independent and is adverse to the respondents / writ petitioners itself, was not maintainable. It appears that by passage of time, the mutation proceedings which has limited scope and which gives limited jurisdiction to the Anchal Adhikari under the Act of 1973 expanded to beyond its scope and in practice may have become an adversary litigation in a proceeding for entering the names of the person who is claiming right through the person whose name is recorded in the revenue record and, claiming the right by virtue of either death of original recorded person and being successor of the recorded persons or by virtue of transfer, exchange, agreement, settlement, lease, mortgage, gift, or by any other means or by virtue of the court's decree or by virtue of grant of land by the Bhoodan Yagna Committee or by virtue of 5 consequence of the acquisition of the land under the Land Acquisition Act or other statutes, but legally, Anchal Adhikari has no jurisdiction to decide adverse claims, other than provided under Sections 3 to 13 of the Act."
9. From the above propositions, it is clear that the mutation is done primarily on the basis of the possession of the land for the purposes of collecting revenue. The revenue authority has no jurisdiction to go into the dispute of title for mutating the name of any person. Though the revenue authority is within its jurisdiction to mutate the name of any person, who is claiming possession over a land devolved from a person in whose name the mutation is already running, however, the revenue authority has no power/jurisdiction to mutate the name of a person, who is claiming the right adverse to the interest of the person whose name is entered in the revenue record.
10. In the present case, the application for mutation of the said land was initially rejected by the Circle Officer, but in appeal the same was allowed by the respondent No.3 without any finding of fact as to who has been in possession of the said land, although the petitioners had specifically pleaded that they have been in possession of the said land from the date of purchase. The revisional authority (respondent No.2) has also affirmed the order of the respondent No.3. On this score alone, the orders of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are not legally sustainable, as they have exceeded their jurisdiction in mutation proceeding and have virtually decided the title of the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 vis-a-vis the petitioners over the land in question.
11. In view of the above discussions and the judicial pronouncements, the impugned order dated 10.04.2006 passed by the respondent No.2 in Mutation Revision No. 88 of 2000 and also the order dated 23.06.2000 passed by the respondent No.3 in Mutation Appeal No. 1 of 1997-98 are, hereby, quashed and set aside. However, 6 it needs to be clarified here that all the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of mutation of the land in question and it will not in any manner affect the title of any party over the said land. The parties may take course before the competent Civil Court for deciding their title over the said land, if so advised.
12. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of in terms of the above observations and directions.
(RAJESH SHANKAR, J) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated 04.08.2017 Satish/A.F.R