RAM PRASAD YADAV Vs. JAGDISH PRASAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's case in this writ application is that he is the adopted son of one Janki Gowala. Janki was the owner of the house bearing old holding no. 26 (present holding no. 21/22), Circle no. 175, Ward no. 27, and plot no. 114 situated within Patna City Municipality. Janki Gowala's name stood recorded in the assessment and demand registers of the said municipality since the year 1951. After his death, his widow Basantia came in possession of the said holding and her name was recorded in the assessment and demand registers of the municipality. After the death of Most. Basantia, the petitioner came in possession of the said holding and his name was recorded in the assessment and demand registers of Patna Municipal Corporation from 1950 -51. He has been paying municipal taxes. The case of the petitioner further is that he had let out the house on rent to Jagdish Prasad, respondent no. 1, as kerayadar, on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/ -. For realisation of rent, he filed Small Cause Court Suit No. 267/152 of 1968 on the 10th of August, 1958. Being enraged by this, respondents 1 to 4 filed a petition on 22 -8 -68 under Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub -section (1) of Sec. 139 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 (Bihar Act 13 of 1952), hereinafter called the Act, for mutation of their name after removal of petitioner's name. The Assistant Administrator of the Patna Municipal Corporation by his order dated 19 -12 -68, a copy of which is Annexure 12 to the writ application, has ordered the mutation of the names of respondents 1 to 4 in place of that of the petitioner. He has, therefore, obtained a rule against the four respondents as also the Assistant Administrator, respondent no. 5, to show cause why the said order be not quashed by grant of an appropriate writ.

(2.) Cause has been shown on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 by filing an affidavit as also at the time of hearing by their learned counsel. Mr. B.P. Gupta appeared to show cause on behalf of respondent no. 5.

(3.) It is not necessary for me to go into the question of possession or title of either party nor would it be legitimate to do so in this writ case. The Assistant Administrator also was not quite justified in going into the disputed question of title or possession. I shall rest my judgment on a short question. It is not disputed in this case - -rather it seems to be tacitly admitted - -that Janki Gope's name was entered in the assessment and demand registers of the Municipality since the year 1915. Basantia's name was entered thereafter. The name of the petitioner has been entered from the year 1950 -51. In that year the last general assessment was there, and it's not clear when the revised assessment was made after 1950 -51. Be that as it may, the name of Janki Gope was there in the municipal papers for a large number of years and that of the petitioner was there for about slightly less than two decades when the application was filed by respondents 1 to 4 for mutation of their names after removal of the petitioner's. Question, therefore, arises whether the Municipal authorities had power to rectify their records and substitute the names of respondents 1 to 4 after removing the name of the petitioner; if so, whether this was a fit case where such a power could not be legitimately exercised.