The Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh in Revenue Appeal No. 07 of 2008 dated 23.02.2010. By this order, the Deputy Commissioner had set aside the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR), Hazaribagh’s order dated 13.03.2008 in Misc. Revenue Case No. 14 of 2007-08 between the same parties. The dispute centered on mutation of land records based on possession and the validity of competing claims supported by registered deeds.
The petitioners contended that their father, namely Barhan Teli reclaimed lands with the permission of the Ex-landlord and the said landlord settled the aforesaid land under a registered Patta and put him in physical possession of the same. The petitioners submitted that after the death of their father, petitioners came into possession of the lands but the State did not mutate the lands in the names of the petitioners, although applications for mutation were filed. They argued that the Deputy Commissioner had passed the said order without jurisdiction, as he has no authority to pass the said order and the possession was in their favor. The petitioners further relied on Dipan Ram Versus State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2002(1) JLJR 616, and Smt. Bela Pandey Versus The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2000 SCC OnLine Pat 565. to argue that the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to pass the order and that only possession should be considered.
On the contrary, the private respondents contended that they purchased the lands in question 70 years back by a registered deed dated 16.11.1954 from the ancestor of the petitioners. The respondent-State submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has rightly passed the order and the private respondents are having the registered deed of the land in question. The private respondents argued that the Circle Officer found possession with the private respondents, not the petitioners and the Deputy Commissioner is the competent authority to review the order of the DCLR.
The court observed that it is an admitted position that the private respondents have purchased the lands in the year 1954 itself from the ancestors of the petitioners. The court noted that in light of the provisions made in The Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, the mutations cases are required to be disposed of by the Circle Officer under Section 14 of the said Act, against the said order, appeal is provided under Section 15 of the said Act before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector (DCLR) and further against the order of the LDRC, the revision power is there before the Deputy Collector/Deputy Commissioner under Section 16 of the said Act. Relying on Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd.v. S.P. Velayutham, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 210, the Court reiterated that only the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the validity of a registered deed conferring title over a land to another person.
Accordingly, Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held that, based on the facts, reasons, and analysis, the court finds no illegality in the impugned order and, therefore, the petition is dismissed. The parties were put at liberty to approach the competent civil court having the civil jurisdiction.
Appearances:
Petitioners: Mr. R.N. Sahay, Sr. Advocate
State: Mr. M.K. Ekka, A.C. to S.C.-I
Respondents 2-13: Mr. Ayush Aditya, Ad