YUGAL KISHORE PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the order dtd. 21/1/2017 passed by the Additional Collector, Palamau-respondent no.3, whereby Mutation Revision Case No.XV/52/2016-17 and Mutation Revision Case No. XV/55/2016-17 filed by the private respondent nos.5 and 6 have been allowed in their favour and the orders dtd. 30/8/2016 and 21/4/2008 passed by the Land Reform Deputy Collector, Palamau-respondent no.2 in Mutation Appeal No. XV/07/2015-16 and Mutation Appeal No.10 of 2006-07, respectively, have been set aside.

(3.) The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the wife of the petitioner no. 1, namely, Savitri Devi purchased the land under Khata No. 131, Plot No. 358, area 13 decimals (hereinafter referred as the said land) by way of registered sale deed no.9053 dtd. 7/8/1991 (rectified vide sale deed no.11657 dtd. 6/11/1992). After purchase of the said land she got her name mutated in the office of the Circle Officer, Daltonganj Anchal (respondent no.4) vide Mutation Case No. 1225 of 2001-02 and started paying rent for the same. The private respondents started claiming right over the said land by virtue of sale deed no.10816 dtd. 2/11/2005 executed by one Subhash Chandra Jain in their favour in which area of the said land was shown as 11 decimals. They filed an application for mutation of the said land which was registered as Mutation case No. 1057 of 2005- 06 however the same was rejected by the respondent no. 4 vide order dtd. 28/2/2006. Aggrieved thereby, the private respondents preferred Mutation Appeal No. 10 of 2006-07 before the respondent no.2 which was also rejected vide order dtd. 21/4/2008. The private respondents, filed an application before the respondent no.4 for cancellation of the jamabandi opened in the name of the wife of the petitioner no.1, which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 90 of 2014- 15, in which the respondent no.4 made recommendation to the respondent no.2 for cancelling the jamabandi on the ground that the private respondents had got the said land mutated vide order dtd. 23/2/2011 passed by the respondent no.4 in Mutation Case No.1404/2010-11 in the Special Revenue Camp Court organized at village Jore. The said miscellaneous case was disposed of vide order dtd. 30/8/2016, observing that the recommendation made by the respondent no.4 for cancelling the Jamabandi opened in the name of wife of the petitioner no.1 was unjustifiable and not in accordance with law. The wife of the petitioner no.1, namely, Savitri Devi died on 15/5/2016. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Mutation Appeal No. XV/07/2015-16, challenging the aforesaid order dtd. 23/2/2011 passed by the respondent no.4 and the said appeal was allowed vide order dtd. 30/8/2016 holding that the said order passed in Mutation Case No. 1404 of 2010-11 was beyond jurisdiction and was not in accordance with law. Aggrieved thereby, the private respondents preferred two revision applications before the Additional Collector Palamau- respondent no.3 i.e. Mutation Revision No. XV/52 of 2016- 17 against the order dtd. 30/8/2016 passed in Mutation Appeal No. XV/07 of 2015-16 and Mutation Revision No.XV/55 of 2016-17 against the order dtd. 21/4/2008 by the respondent no.2 in Mutation Appeal No. 10 of 2006-07. Both the revision applications filed by the private respondents have been allowed by the respondent no.3 vide common order dtd. 21/1/2017 (impugned herein), observing that the concerned Halka Karamchari and the C.I had submitted report in Mutation Case No.1404 of 2010-11 that the jamabandi was running in the name of the vendor of the respondent no.4 and 5 as also the private respondents were in possession of the said land. The respondent no.3 also observed that those facts were required to be primarily considered while passing the order of mutation of the said land in favour of the private respondents. It was further held by the respondent no.3 that the order passed in Mutation Case No. 1404 of 2010-11 was in accordance with law.