DILIP KUMAR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Sahani learned counsel for the respondents, and with their consent this writ application is disposed of at this stage.

(2.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.1998 passed by Additional Collector, Ranchi in Mutation Revision No. 660 R - 15/96 -97 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records Act, 1973 whereby he has set aside the order dated 21.2.1997 passed by respondent No. 3 Land Reforms Dy. Collector, Khunti in Mutation Appeal No. 15/95 -96 and also order dated 19.8.1995 passed by Circle Officer, in Mutation case No. 141/95 -96.

(3.) IT has not been disputed by the respondents that mutation was effected in favour of the petitioner in the year 1978 and for the last 20 years the petitioners name was running in revenue record and he has been paying rent and taxes to the State of Bihar. In such circumstances the revisional authority was not justified in passing impugned order for cancellation of zamabandi running in the name of the petitioner. At best, revisional authority could have asked the respondents to go to the civil Court for adjudication of their title and possession. It is well settled that zamabandi running in the name of particular person for several years can not be cancelled at the instance of the claimant in summary proceeding. The proper course for the claimant is to move to civil Court of competent jurisdiction for proper relief. In this connection reliance may be placed of two Division Bench Judgments in the case of Harihar Singh v. Addl. Collector, 1978 BBCJ 323 and in the case Jamaluddin Ahmad v. S.D.O., Khagaria and Ors., 1979 BBCJ 605.