Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Mr. J.P. Jha, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. Shree Prakash Jha,  learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the report submitted by the  Circle Officer, Deoghar is not sustainable as the same was merely a procured  document submitted by the Karamchari. There was never any enquiry and  the alleged report was a collusive table work prepared at the instance of the  opposite party. The mechanical way of working is evident from the fact that  Karamchari   recommended   for   mutation   of   Plot   No.   1141   also   with   other  plots when plot no. 1141 was not even land recorded under Jamabandi No. 6  or belonged to Mt. Kamali Devi. Learned Sr. Counsel further submitted that  the petitioner was intentionally not made party before the Deputy Collector  and   notice   issued   to   16   Annas   Raiyats   were   not   validly   served   and  manipulated service report was submitted at the instance of opposite party  no.  1.  Learned   counsel   further   submitted   that   the   Deputy   Collector,   Land  Reforms,   Deoghar   had   miserably   failed   to   appreciate   that   the   respondent  nos.   6   and   7   have   been   able   to   procure   a   manipulated   report   from   the  Karamchari and further the Additional Collector, Deoghar had wrongly held  that  the  documents  did  not  seem to  be a  genuine  one  in  absence of any  expert   opinion.   The   Additional   Collector   as   well   as   the   Deputy   Collector,  Land Reforms have failed to see that the respondent nos. 6 and 7 have no  right   and   title   on   the   landed   property   in   question   and   thus   no   order   of  mutation could have been passed in their favour and as such, the order of the  Additional   Collector,   Deoghar   dated   27.06.1998   in   Rev.   Misc.   Appeal   No.  RC 67/1993 - 94 [Annexure­1] and the  order of the D.C.L.R. Deoghar dated  28.02.1994 in Mutation Case No. 3/1993 - 94 [Annexure­1/A] are fit to be  quashed.   Learned   Sr.   Counsel   further   submitted   that   the   petitioner   had  submitted all the legal and valid documents so as to prove that the landed  property   situated   in   Jamabandi   No.   6   is   a   non­transferably   land   and   the  authority   under   the   Mutation   Law   has   no   jurisdiction   to   entertain   any  petition   for   mutation.   Learned   Sr.   Counsel   further   submitted   that   the   the  Additional Collector as well as the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Deoghar  have failed to see that the fixation of rent and entry of names of the Raiyats  in the land lord Sarista are being made by the settlement authority in entire  Deoghar District after Notification under Section 9 of the Santhal Paragana  Settlement Regulation No. 3 of 1872 and such power of enquiry into the  landed   rights   are   to   be   made   in   view   of   Sections   12   and   13   of   the   said  Regulation and for that purpose, the Sub­Divisional Officer of Deoghar has  also   been   appointed   as   the   Assistant   Settlement   Officer   but   the   Deputy  Collector,   Land   Reforms,   Deoghar   as   well   as   the   Additional   Collector,  Deoghar have exceeded their jurisdiction to usurp the power of Settlement  Court.   Learned   Sr.   Counsel   further   submitted   that   the   finding   of   the  Additional Collector with regard to documentary evidence is perverse and  wrong and as such the same is fit to be quashed by this Court. Learned Sr.  Counsel further pointed out that under the wrong legal advice Revenue (M)  Revision No. 3/98­99 was filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner,  which was disposed of as being not maintainable on 22.10.2002 (Annexure­