Jharkhand High Court
Mahesh Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 April, 2026
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2026:JHHC:11864
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.4150 of 2019
------
1. Mahesh Prasad, S/o Late Muni Sao.
2. Binod Prasad Sao, S/o Late Bundi Sao.
3. Pramod Prasad Sao, S/o Late Bundi Sao.
All residents of Village Jarmune, Tola Bagodar Chatti, P.O. &
P.S. Bagodar, District Giridih.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, at P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District
Giridih, Jharkhand.
3. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih at P.O. & P.S. Giridih,
District Giridih, Jharkhand.
4. Circle Officer, Bagodar, at P.O. & P.S. Bagodar, District Giridih,
Jharkhand.
5. Radhey Shyam, S/o Late Laxmi Narayan Sao, R/o Village
Jarmune, Tola Bagodar Chatti, P.O. & P.S. Bagodar, District
Giridih.
6. Gouri Shankar, S/o Late Laxmi Narayan Sao, R/o Village
Jarmune, Tola Bagodar Chatti, P.O. & P.S. Bagodar, District
Giridih.
... ... Respondents
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.N. Sahay, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Yashvardhan, Advocate Mr. Kirtivardhan, Advocate Mr. Ritesh Singh, Advocate Mr. Aditya Aman, Advocate For the State : Ms. Rishi Bharati, AC to AAG-III For Respondent Nos.
5&6 : None present
------
02/ 21.04.2026
Today also, when the matter was called, counsel representing respondent Nos.5 & 6 were absent. On the last date i.e. 09.04.2026, when the matter was argued, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.5 & 6 did not appear, thus this case was adjourned for one week.
2. Since today, no one is appearing on behalf of 1 2026:JHHC:11864 respondent Nos.5 & 6, this Court is proceeding ex-parte against them.
3. Heard learned senior counsel representing the petitioners and learned counsel representing the respondents.
4. The petitioners in this writ petition have prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(I) To quash and set-aside the Order dated 20.11.2017 (Annexure-10) later on corrected on 20.08.2018 (Annexure-10/2) passed by Learned Deputy Commissioner Giridih in Mutation Case No.20/2012, later on corrected as Mutation Revision Case No.20/2012 by Order dated 20.08.2018 by which long running Jamabandi in the name of the petitioners and their Vendor has been cancelled.
AND (II) Further be pleased to quash and set-aside the Order dated 28.09.2012 (Annexure-9) passed by Learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih (hereinafter referred to as LRDC, Giridih) in Mutation Appeal No.81/2010-11 by which Order of Mutation passed by Circle Officer, Bagodar, Giridih has been set aside.
AND (III) Further be pleased to hold that the 4 decimals of land which fell in the share of Sheikh Rajbali had already been sold to his own brother Rehmat Ali by a sada Sale Deed dated 17.01.1936, therefore no title in respect of the said lands passed to the Private Respondent No.5 and 6 by the alleged subsequent purchase.
AND 2 2026:JHHC:11864 (IV) Further be pleased to stay the operation of Impugned Annexure 9 & 10 during the pendency of the instant case."
5. The petitioners had applied to mutate the land in question, in their name, having an area of 12 decimals in Thana Bagodar, Halka No.2, Mauza Jarmune, Khata No.108, plot No.1856, which the petitioners have purchased from Saleha Khatoon.
6. After the petitioners had applied for mutation of land, the same was ordered to be mutated in favour of the petitioners, vide order contained in Annexure-7/3, on the ground that during inquiry it was found that earlier the land and the house belonged to Saleha Khatoon, from whom the petitioners purchased the land. The possession of the petitioners was established.
7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, respondent Nos.5 & 6 filed an appeal before the DCLR, who after hearing the parties had modified the order to the effect that 04 decimals of land, out of the 12 decimals be mutated in the name of Mahesh Prasad, Binod Prasad Sao and Pramod Prasad Sao.
8. The aforesaid order was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, who upheld the aforesaid order.
9. In a mutation proceeding, a title is not decided. It is to be seen that who is in possession over the property in question and from whom the rent has to be collected. Though, prima facie title must be established but if anyone is opposing the title, he has to approach the Civil Court.
3
2026:JHHC:11864
10. In this case, from the order passed by the Circle Officer, it is clear that the petitioners were in possession of the property on the basis of the sale deed. Thus, the Circle Officer, had passed an order to mutate the land in favour of the petitioners. It is the respondent Nos.5 & 6, who are opposing the same and also claiming title. Thus, respondent Nos.5 & 6 have to approach the Civil Court, if they claim any independent title over the property in question.
11. Considering the aforesaid fact, the impugned orders dated 28.09.2012 in Mutation Appeal No.81/10-11, passed by Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih, and 20.11.2017 in Mutation Revision Case No.20/2012, passed by the District Magistrate, Giridih, corrected vide order dated 20.08.2018, are hereby set aside.
11.1. The order dated 26.03.2010 passed by the Circle Officer is revived, with the liberty to the respondent Nos.5 & 6, if they are claiming independent title, to approach the appropriate Civil Court for declaration of their right, title and interest. 11.2. Till such right is declared, the rent will be received by the State from the petitioners but such payment of rent will not give any advantage to the petitioners in suit, if filed by respondent Nos.5 & 6.
12. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.
(ANANDA SEN, J.) 21st April, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 07th May, 2026 4