(1.) In this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to quash the Memo No.891/Vidhi dtd. 30/11/2020 issued by the Deputy Collector Incharge, Giridih, whereby the request of the petitioner to recall the restriction imposed on the sale of land was rejected. Further, a prayer has been made to issue a mandamus commanding upon the Deputy Commissioner to recall the restrain order as contained in letter No.1632/GO dtd. 3/9/2016 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih.
(2.) Land in question situated in Village Pandeydih under Khata No.6, Police Station Giridih belonged to the ex-landlord M/s Bengal Coal Company. Vide registered Settlement Deed dtd. 21/2/1912, the land was settled in favour of Babu Bipin Bihari Choudhary. Plot numbers were mentioned as 381 and 382. The said Babu Bipin Bihari Choudhary sold the aforesaid land to Babu Ram Singh and one Bihari Lal Jalan vide registered sale deed dtd. 28/1/1935, wherein also the details of land was mentioned as Plot Nos.381 and 382 of Khata No.6, Village Pandeydih. Heirs of Babu Ram Singh sold the aforesaid land to Vijay Kumar Jalan son of Bihari Lal Jalan vide registered sale deed dtd. 6/5/1980. In the said sale deed also the plot numbers were mentioned as 381 and 382. Co-sharers of the property filed a partition suit being Partition Suit No.34 of 1988 in the Court of Sub Judge, Giridih in respect of the joint family property including the aforesaid property. The suit was compromised and in the said plaint and other documents including compromise petition also, plot numbers were mentioned as 381 and 382. The petitioner, later on came to know that the actual plot numbers of the land was in fact 391, 392 and 393, but it was wrongly mentioned in all the registered sale deeds, settlement deeds and in Court documents as 381 and 382. Petitioner, thereafter filed an application before the Anchal Adhikari (Circle Officer), Giridih along with documents, praying therein to correct the plot numbers mentioned as 381 and 382 to plot Nos.391, 392 and 393 in the revenue records. In the Revenue Records also, the plot numbers of the petitioner's land was recorded as plot Nos.381 and 382 as recorded in all the other documents. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application before the Circle Officer, Giridih, praying therein to correct the plot numbers recorded in the Revenue Records against the name of the petitioner from 381 and 382 to plot Nos.391, 392 and 393. An enquiry was conducted and objections were called for and after hearing the parties, the Circle Officer on 8/9/2020, after rejecting the objections, allowed the application of the petitioner and corrected the plot numbers in the Revenue Records as plot Nos. 391, 392 and 393 in place of plot Nos.381 and 382. Thus, as per the Revenue Records, the plot numbers of the petitioner has been corrected. As some land grabbers started to interfere with the land over plot Nos.391, 392 and 393 (wrongly mentioned as plot Nos.381 and 382), which, according to the petitioner belonged to him, by virtue of registered deed, he filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih to ensure that any portion of the said plots, i.e., plot Nos.391, 392 and 393 are not allowed to be sold by any registered deed. The Deputy Commissioner, on representation of the petitioner, vide letter No.1632/GO addressed to the Sub Registrar, Giridih, instructed the latter not to register any deed in respect of the lands in Mouza Pandeydih, Thana No.43, Giridih Muffasil, Khata No.6, Plot Nos.391, 392 and 393. Once the plot numbers in the Revenue Records was corrected, the petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, praying therein to recall the restraint order, which was rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the Government Pleader had opined that the petitioner should first get the registered deed corrected by invoking Sec. 26 of the Specific Reliefs Act. This impugned order in Memo No.891 dtd. 30/11/2020 is under challenge in this writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, when the Revenue Records have already been corrected and in new Revenue Records, the plot Nos.391, 392 and 393 has been reflected to be the plot of the petitioner, then respondents should have withdrawn the restraint order. As per him, the Deputy Commissioner did not apply his mind rather solely based his decision on the opinion of the Government Pleader, which should not have been done. The Circle Officer, after detailed enquiry, when had accepted the mistake and had corrected the Revenue Records by entering plot Nos.391, 392 and 393 in place of plot Nos.381 and 382, the Deputy Commissioner should have accepted the aforesaid correction made and should have recalled the restraint order. He also submits that in a civil suit, where one Shyam Sundar Manmohan claimed raiyati right over the aforesaid land in question being plot Nos.391, 392 and 393, Khata No.6, in the said suit being Title Suit No.29 of 2006, the Civil Judge, Senior Division Giridih vide his judgment held that plot Nos.391, 392 and 393 and part of plot No.394 does not belong to Shyam Sundar Manmohan. Thus, in view of the aforesaid findings, respondents should not have rejected the claim of the petitioner and directed them to get the deed corrected in terms of Specific Reliefs Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that in terms of Sec. 3 of the Bihar Tenant's Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, the Circle Officer has got power to make correction of any wrong entries.