SHAKUNTLA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present writ petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 26.10.2006, passed by Circle Officer, Sadar, Ranchi, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for mutation of land in question in Mutation Case No. 5166 R 27/2006-07 has been rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon respondent no. 3 (Circle Officer, Sadar, Ranchi) to mutate the name of the petitioner in the tenants ledger register.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Raghunath Sahu sold 25 decimals of land to Sri Mahabir Prasad in the year 1962 through a registered sale deed. Thereafter Mahabir Prasad sold 6 kathas of land to Krishna Kumar Gupta, 3 kathas to Jayshankar Mishra, 3 kathas to Upendra Bihari Mishra and 3 kathas to Kashinath Sharma through registered sale deeds in the year 1982. Subsequently, Jayshanker Mishra, Upendra Bihari Mishra and Kashinath Sharma transferred their lands to Sri Krishna Kumar Gupta. The name of Krishna Kumar Gupta was mutated in Govt. revenue records by the Circle Officer, Sadar, Ranchi vide Mutation Case No. 79 R 27/87-88 and the rent receipt was issued regularly. Thereafter one S.A.R. Case No. 103 of 2000 was filed by one Chotelal Munda against Krishna Kumar Gupta for restoration of lands in question. It is further submitted that the petitioner purchased a land of village Hesal, Thana No. 202, Khata No. 100, plot no. 210, area 1 katha 8 chhatak from the said Krishna Kumar Gupta by a registered sale deed dated 06.05.2004. Thereafter the petitioner applied for mutation in her name in Govt. revenue records before the respondent no. 3 on 16.10.2006. The application filed by the petitioner was registered as Mutation Case No. 5166 R 27/2006-07 and the petitioner was directed to appear on 31.10.2006. Thereafter respondent no. 3 issued a public notice to which objections were to be filed by the objectors by 31.10.2006.

(3.) The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner appeared before respondent no. 3 on 31.10.2006, but she was surprised to know that her application for mutation of the land was taken up by the respondent no. 3 in camp court on 26.10.2006 and since the petitioner was absent on that date, the said application was rejected. Under the said circumstance, the petitioner was not able to present her case before the respondent no. 3, therefore, the impugned order dated 26.10.2006, which was passed by the respondent no. 3 (Circle Officer, Sadar, Ranchi) behind her back may be quashed and set aside.