ARJUN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is taken up through video conferencing.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 21/5/2019 passed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh- respondent no.2 in Mutation Revision no.07 of 2019, whereby the revision petition filed by Sudama Devi- respondent no.6 under rule 76 of Bihar Practice and Procedure Manual against the order dtd. 4/9/2018 passed by Land Reform Deputy Collector, Hazaribagh-respondent no.4 in Mutation Appeal No.39/2015-16 has been allowed during the pendency of regular Mutation Revision No.05/2018 filed by the respondent no.6 before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh- respondent no.3, directing the Circle Officer Sadar, Hazaribag- respondent no.5 to mutate the land in question in the name of the respondent no.6 in place of her ancestor, namely, Bilsi Devi by opening of a fresh Jamabandi and to issue rent receipt regularly in her name and the Jamabandi running in the name of Dhupani Devi, wife of Jagan Barhi, as shown in Register-II, Volume 1, Page no.124 of Mauja Sarley, be cancelled. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dtd. 30/5/2019 passed by the respondent no.2 in Miscellaneous Application No.53 of 2019, whereby the review application filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

(3.) The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the land appertaining to Khata No.60 of village Sarley is recorded in cadastral survey Khatiyan in the name of Rukmani @ Rukmania (great grandmother of petitioner Arjun Sharma), daughter of Kanak Barhi and wife of Bandhan Barhi, Gopi Barhi, Balgobind Barhi and Budhan Barhi, all sons of Bandhu Barhi. As per Kabjwari entries, the survey officials prepared Khata No. 60 containing various plots, measuring 3.45 acres of village Sarley in the name of Rukmani, having possession over 2.01 as well as lands under possession of Gopi Barhi, Balgobind Barhi and Budhan Barhi measuring 1.44 acres including the land of plot no.241, measuring 0.50 acre, which is apparent from entries made under Khata No. 60 of Village Sarely, P.S and District Hazaribag. Rukmania Devi, wife of Bandhan Barhi died leaving behind one son- Jagan Barhi, who died leaving behind his only son- Ram Dhani Rana and his wife Dhupani Devi. The petitioner is the son of Late Ram Dhani Rana @ Mistry. Gopi Barhi, Balgobind Barhi and Budhan Barhi sold the land in question, appertaining to Plot No. 241, area 0.50 acre, in favour of Dhuapni Devi (grandmother of the petitioner) for consideration of Rs.95.00 and 12 Annas by virtue of a unregistered sale deed dtd. 27/5/1929. Dhupani Devi got her name mutated vide order dtd. 26/3/1962 passed in Mutation Case No. 1017/1961-62 and, accordingly, her name was recorded in Register-II and she continued to pay rent. After the death of Dhupani Devi, her son- Ram Dhani Rana continued to be in possession over the land in question as well as other inherited land from his ancestor- Rukmania Devi and paid rent. Ram Dhani Rana died leaving behind his widow- Budhani Devi and one son Arjun Sharma (petitioner herein) who came in possession and paid rent payable in the name of Dhupani Devi. All of a sudden, on 8/4/2015, some land Mafia started constructing boundary wall over the land of the petitioner with an intention to build a house over the same and when the petitioner opposed them, Rajesh Kumar Mehta and Mithlesh Kumar Mehta disclosed him that a power of attorney for sale has been executed in their favour by Rupan Rana on 22/10/2014. They also disclosed that there has been mutation in favour of Rupan Rana and others in the Circle Office, Sadar, Hazaribag since 2014-15 and rent receipts are being issued. The petitioner then approached the Circle Office where he came to know about the order dtd. 27/11/2014 passed in Mutation Case No. 2254 of 2014-15, mutating the name of Rupan Rana, Dhaneshwar Rana and Vinod Rana. On enquiry, the petitioner found that after obtaining power of attorney, Mithlesh Kumar Mehta and Rajesh Kumar Mehta executed sale deeds with respect to 0.08 acre of land appertaining to Khata No. 60, Plot No. 241 in favour of their wives, namely, Meena Kumari and Shanti Devi, respectively, on 20/11/2014 and they have applied for mutation of their names which was registered as Mutation Case No. 547 of 2015-16. The petitioner filed objection in the said mutation case, however, the same was turned down and vide order dtd. 10/3/2016 the respondent no.5 allowed mutation with respect to the land in question in their favour. The petitioner filed mutation appeal in the court of respondent no.4, which was numbered as Mutation Appeal No. 39/2015-16. In the said appeal, the respondent no.6 filed an intervention application, claiming her right over the said land. Finally, the appeal was heard and vide order dtd. 4/9/2018, the same was allowed by the respondent no.4 setting aside the order passed by the respondent no.5 in Mutation Case No.2254 of 2014-15 and Mutation Case No.547 of 2015-16. Thereafter, the respondent no.6 preferred Mutation Revision Case No. 5 of 2018 in the court of Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh-respondent no.3 and during the pendency of the said revision, another revision petition being Mutation Revision Case No. 7 of 2019 was filed by the respondent no.6 under rule 76 of the Bihar Practice and Procedure Manual in the Court of the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh- respondent no.2 without impleading the petitioner or other affected persons as parties. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an application on 4/4/2019 under Order I rule 10 CPC for impleading him as opposite party, however, the same was rejected on 23/4/2019 without assigning any reason. The revision application filed by the respondent no.6 was finally allowed vide order dtd. 21/5/2019, directing the respondent no.5 to mutate the name of Sudama Devi by opening a fresh Jamabandi observing inter alia that she was a bona fide and legitimate descendant of Gopi Barhi and further cancelled the Jamabandi running in the name of Dhupani Devi, wife of Jagan Barhi. As soon as the petitioner came to know about the said order, he filed review application which was numbered as Miscellaneous Application No.53 of 2019, however, the same was also dismissed on the same day i.e. on 30/5/2019.