BISHWANATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) PETITIONER has challenged the order dated 20.2.2003 (Annexure -8), passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur (respondent No. 3) in Mutation Appeal No. 39 of 2000 - 01, rejecting the appeal and affirming the order dated 23.8.1996, passed in Mutation Case No. 298/1994 by the Circle Officer, Jug -salai, Jamshedpur.

(3.) ACCORDING to the respondents: the land in question was recorded in the last survey as "Gairabad Malik", which has been leased to TISCO. The alleged predecessor of petitioner did not acquire right on the basis of a purported "Sada Hukumnama". There is nothing to show that the ex - landlord mentioned about the said settlement in his return. Petitioner filed a collusive suit and obtained ex -parte decree without making the State Government or the TISCO as party. Even in the order dated 9.4.1990, passed in Civil Revision No. 62 of 1990 (R), it was observed that the TISCO being not a party to the decree is not bound thereby and could file a suit and could also ask for an order of injunction restraining the decree holder from proceeding with the execution case.