TAURIAN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.11.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Mutation Revision No.63, 64 and 65R15/2009 -10. Since the land and the parties to the sale transaction are the same and the facts and the issues involved are also same, all the writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE petitioner in all the writ petitions is purchaser of the portion of the land appertaining to Khata No.75, 45 and 85 of Mauza Hazam, P.S. Hatia, District Ranchi. The petitioner's case is that the said land was held and possessed by ex -landlord Lal Harak Nath Shahdeo of Mouza Hazam, P.S. Hatia, District Ranchi. The ex -landlord, through his grand son and duly constituted power of attorney namely Kisto Kali Nath Shahdeo, granted permanent raiyati settlement in favour of one Dr. Shiv Shankar Sahay Srivastava by virtue of registered deed dated 9.9.1947. On the basis of the said raiyati settlement, said Dr. Sahay came in possession of the land, paid rent to the ex -landlord and got rent receipts. After vesting of all the intermediary interests by virtue of provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, an enquiry was made and the said Dr. Shiv Shankar Sahay was recognized as raiyat by the State. Rent was fixed in respect of the settlement made in his favour and a demand was opened in his name. There was amicable partition in the family of Dr. Sahay by registered deed of partition dated 6.8.1971.

(3.) THE petitioner, thereafter, preferred appeal against the said order of the Circle Officer before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ranchi. The said appeals were registered as Mutation Appeal nos.31, 32 and 33R15/2008 -09. Learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR) heard the parties and considered the relevant facts and materials on record and came to the finding that since the petitioner has acquired land from the same purchaser and the basis is also same, the order denying mutation in respect of the land of Khata nos.45, 75 and 85 is arbitrary and illegal. Learned DCLR allowed the appeals and the petitioner's prayer for mutation.