PRADEEP KUMAR RAI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Court The petitioners purchased two decimals of land of Plot No. 58 appertaining to Khata No.57 of village Simradhab, P.S. Birni, district: Giridih from Jang Bahadur Rai by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 20.3.2002.

(2.) The petitioners thereafter, applied for mutation of their names in place of vendor Jang Bahadur Rai before the Circle Officer, Birni. On receipt of application, the Circle Officer, Birni called for a report from Halka Karamchari. General Notices were also issued inviting objection. Objections were filed against the petitioners' application by Girish Rai and Rishi Rai as well as also by the vendor Jang Bahadur Rai. Halka Karamchari and the Circle Inspector submitted their reports recommending the names of the petitioners for mutation as prayed for by the petitioners.

(3.) Circle Officer heard the objectors and considered the report and found that according to the report of the Halka Karmachari, Jamabandi in respect of the land in question along with other lands was running in the name of petitioners' vendor Jang Bahadur Rai from whom the petitioners have purchased the said land by virtue of registered sale deed. After purchase of the land in question, the petitioners have also raised boundary wall and they are in possession of the said land. The Circle Officer also enquired from the vendor Jang Bahadur Rai about the execution of the sale deed and he accepted the execution, but added that subsequently he executed a deed of cancellation for cancelling the said sale deed. The other objectors claimed to have got interest in the property sold/transferred by the vendor Jang Bahadur Rai but no document was produced in support of the claim. The Circle Officer further found from the report that the vendor had earlier sold some of the properties out of his Jamabandi and the names of the purchasers were mutated in revenue record. Considering the said admitted position and also the reports on record, learned Circle Officer rejected the objections and allowed mutation in the petitioner's name by his order dated 29.11.2002 (Annexure-2). The objectors thereafter, filed appeal before the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector( L.R.D.C.), Giridih which was registered as Mutation Appeal No. 105/02-03. Learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih allowed the appeal observing that since there are objections regarding possession of the petitioners, learned Circle Officer should not have allowed the mutation in absence of peaceful possession of the petitioners and in view thereof, the order passed by the learned Circle officer is not legal. Learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih set aside the order of the learned Circle Officer, Birni vide his order dated 14.6.2003.