Kunj Bihari Lal Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2553 Jhar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                  W.P.(C) No. 4433 of 2017
                                              ----
         Kunj Bihari Lal Gupta                ...          Petitioner
                                              -Versus-
           1. The State of Jharkhand.
           2. The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla
           3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gumla.
           4. The Circle Officer, Gumla Sadar, Gumla.
           5. Pushpa Devi
           6. Kanhaiya Lal Gupta.                          Respondents
                                                 ----

                CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

----

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Akhauri, SC Mines-I Mr. Sharabhil Ahmed, AC to SC Mines-I.

----

6/02.08.2023: Heard the counsel for the parties.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 25.2.2016 passed in Mutation Case No. 764R27/2015-16 passed by respondent No. 4 whereby, he has passed the order of mutation of the land of Khata No. 3, Plot No. 37, Area 0.50 Acre of Mouza- Urmi, in the name of respondent No. 5.

3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that admittedly a title suit was pending way back in the year-2015 between the petitioner and respondent No. 5, which has been acknowledged by the authority while mutating the land in favour of respondent No. 5. He further submits that the mutation creates a right in favour of respondent No. 5.

4. Counsel for the State submits that the order of mutation does not create any right in favour of respondent No. 5, so far as title is concerned, more so, when title suit is pending. He also submits that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, though he has alternative efficious statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector.

5. After going through the petition and hearing the parties, I find that by the impugned order dated 25.2.2016 passed by Circle Officer, Gumla, the land has been mutated in the name of respondent No. 5. The order of mutation does not create any right in favour of any person in whose name, the property is mutated. Since Title Suit No. 09 of 2015 is pending between the parties, the judgment of the Title Suit will prevail. Further, in view of the pendency of the title

Suit, the order of mutation cannot be said to be a final order.

6. Thus, considering the settled proposition of law that the mutation does not create any right in favour of a person in whose name the mutation is done, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned.

7. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

(ANANDA SEN, J.) Anu/-Cp2.