Jharkhand High Court
Rabindra Kumar Sood vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 January, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 386 of 2019
-----
1.Rabindra Kumar Sood
2.Smt. Sadhna Sood .... Petitioner(s).
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad
3.The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad
4.Managing Director, MADA, Dhanbad
5.President/Secretary, Krishna Apartment (north block), R/o Rangatand, Dhanbad
... Respondent(s).
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to G.A.-III
For the Resp No.5 : Ms. Rishi Bharti, Advocate
For MADA : Ms. Amrita Kumari, Advocate
.........
14 /22.01.2024: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for
the State and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Petitioners in this writ petition has prayed for the following
relief:-
I. For issuance of appropriate writ/ direction, for setting aside order dated
14.07.2014 passed by LRDC, Dhanbad in Mutation Appeal No.74/13-14
(Annexure-1) and order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner
Dhanbad in Mutation Revision Case No.35 of 2014 (Annexure-2).
3. During course of argument, it has come to light that admittedly
the Title Suit No.199 of 2013 is pending, which has been filed by M/s
Krishna Apartment Society (respondent herein). The owner of the land
has filed this instant writ petition on the ground that his mutation has
been cancelled.
4. Mutation neither creates any title over the property nor
extinguish it.
5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Singh vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802 has
held that mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in
favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is
only for the fiscal purpose. In the aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble
Supreme Court at paras 7 and 8 has held as under:-
"7. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat
Singh (D), By Lrs., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137, this Court had an occasion to
consider the effect of mutation and it is observed and held that mutation of
property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property
nor has it any presumptive value on title. Such entries are relevant only for the
purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar view has been expressed in the series
of decisions thereafter.
8. In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, it is
observed and held by this Court that an entry in revenue records does not confer
title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the revenue
records or jamabandi have only "fiscal purpose", i.e., payment of land revenue,
and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is further observed
that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a
competent civil court........ "
6. Since the Title Suit is admittedly pending before the Civil Court
in which the petitioner is also a party, I am disposing this instant writ
petition with a direction that the parties should co-operate in the suit
and will try to get the same adjudicated at the earliest.
7. It is made clear that the orders passed in respect of mutation will
be subject to the final decree passed in the suit. Parties will abide by
the same and the respondent-State will also take an appropriate
decision once the suit is disposed of.
8. In the meantime, status quo in respect of the land in
question should be maintained and no third party right should be
created.
9. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition is
disposed of.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
R.S.
