RATIKANTA GIRI Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.04.2006 passed by the respondent No. 2 in Mutation Revision No. 88 of 2000 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) whereby the order dated 23.06.2000 passed by the respondent No. 3 in Mutation Appeal No. 1 of 1997-98 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) has been affirmed.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the land under Khata No. 396, Plot Nos. 114 & 115, area-4 decimal, situated in Mouza-Kasharda, P.S-Bahragora, District-East Singhbhum (hereinafter referred to as 'the said land') was recorded in the R.S Record of Right in the name of one Satish Chandra Giri. An agreement to sell the said land was executed between Satish Chandra Giri and Rajendra Giri on 21.06.1967. When the sale deed was not executed as per the terms of the agreement, a suit for specific performance of contract of sale being Title Suit No. 266 of 1970 was filed and the same was decreed ex-parte on 23.03.1974. When the suit was pending for execution of the sale deed, Satish Chandra Giri sold the said land to the petitioners on 25.08.1981 and they got their names mutated in the Office of the Circle Officer, Baharagora vide Mutation Case Nos. 1/82-83 and 2/82-83. Pursuant to the order passed in Title Suit No. 266 of 1970, a sale deed was executed on 28.11.1981 by the learned Munsif in favour of two widows of Late Rajendra Giri, namely, Shanti Bala Giri and Nitya Bala Giri. The widows of Late Rajendra Nath Giri sold the said land to the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 by way of registered sale deed dated 08.01.1990 and thereafter they applied for mutation of their names in Register-II, but the Circle Officer rejected their application observing that he is incompetent to cancel the Jamabandi running in the names of the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 filed appeal being Mutation Appeal No. 1/1997-98, which was allowed by the respondent No. 3 (Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ghatshila) by holding that the sale deed executed pursuant to the order passed in title suit can only be legally recognized. Thereafter, the petitioners filed revision application being Mutation Revision No. 88 of 2000, which was also dismissed by the respondent No. 2 (Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum) on 10.04.2006.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that a decree passed in the suit for specific performance of contract of sale does not create any interest in the property. It is further submitted that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principle of natural justice. The learned counsel further submits that the impugned order is passed in lack of jurisdiction, as while dealing with a mutation case, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had not been vested with the power of the competent Civil Court.