VIJAY KUMAR VISHWAKARMA SON OF LATE NAGESHWAR VISHWAKARMA RESIDENT OF SATYA NARAYAN MANDIR ROAD, WARD NO. 2 NAUGACHHIA, P.S. NAUGACHHIA, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - Heard Dr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AC to SC No. 14 as well as learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 5.

(2.) The petitioner, invoking writ jurisdiction of this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 13.5.2010 passed by the learned Collector, Bhagalpur, in M.R. Case No. 50 of 2009-10 (Annexure - 3 to the writ petition). By the said order learned Collector has set aside the order of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Naugachhia, in Mutation Appeal Case No. 3 of 2009-10. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the order dated 15.3.2008 passed in Mutation Case No. 994(VI) of 2007-08.

(3.) Short fact of the case is that the respondent no. 5 had approached the Circle Officer for mutation of her name in respect of the land appertaining to khata no. 214, khesra no. 344, measuring 1185 Sq. Ft. The said application was allowed and name of the respondent no. 5 was directed to be recorded in the revenue record. The petitioner after noticing about the impugned order approached the D.C.L.R. assailing the order of the Circle Officer mainly on the ground that without valid notice to the petitioner order of mutation was passed by the Circle Officer that too in a camp court. It was pleaded that long back the said land was already transferred to the petitioner and his family members through registered sale deed by the father -in -law of the respondent no. 5 and in the plot in question no portion of land was available in the name of the respondent no. 5, nor respondent no. 5 were in possession over the land in question. Before the learned D.C.L.R. a plea was taken on behalf of the respondent no. 5 that her father -in-law had executed a will and on the basis of said will, mutation was prayed for and same was allowed. The learned D.C.L.R. noticed that the said will was not confirmed in a probate proceeding and in absence of any confirmation the Circle Officer was not authorised to entertain the application for mutation. Against the said order the respondent no. 5 preferred a revision before the learned Collector and the learned Collector by its order dated 13.5.2010 passed in M.R. Case No. 50 of 2009 -10 allowed the revision, which has been assailed in the present proceeding.