Jharkhand High Court
Harivansh Yadav vs Rajiv Poddar on 7 July, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:18047-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 621 of 2024
Harivansh Yadav, aged about 49 years, son of Late Chamaru Yadav,
residing at Rampur, P.O. Malhara, P.S. Mohanpur, District- Deoghar,
Jharkhand
... Respondent. No.7/Appellant
Versus
1. Rajiv Poddar, Aged about 64 years, son of Late Ishwari Prasad
Poddar,
2. Pradip Poddar, Aged about 60 years, son of Late Ishwari Prasad
Poddar, Both resident of Village Kunda, P.S. Deoghar and P.O
Deoghar & District Deoghar, Jharkhand.
Petitioners/Respondents
3. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having its office
at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa and P.S. Jagannathpur,
District- Ranchi.
4. Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, through
its Principal Secretary having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa,
P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar P.O. Deoghar P.S. Deoghar
District-Deoghar, Jharkhand.
6. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Deoghar P.O. Deoghar P.S.
Deoghar District- Deoghar, Jharkhand.
7. The Circle Officer, Deoghar P.O. Deoghar P.S. Deoghar District-
Deoghar, Jharkhand.
8. Smt. Kavita Dutta, Widow of Late Sudhin Dutta, aged about 58
Year, Resident of Makardah, Choudhary Para, Domjur, Howrah,
P.O. & P.S. Domjur, District Howrah, West Bengal, Pin Code
711405.
9. Bhola Ram Yadav, son of Late Dhari Ram Yadav, residing at
12/1A, Nanda Mullick Lane, P.O. Beadon Street, P.S. Girish Park,
Kolkata, West Bengal.
... Respondents/Proforma Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Appellant: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Niladri Shekhar Mukherjee, Advocate
Miss Divyashree, Advocate
Mr. Aman Mukherjee, Advocate
Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Yogesh Modi, A.C. to A.A.G.-IA
Page 1 of 5
2025:JHHC:18047-DB
For Resp. Nos.1&2: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
Ms. Sneh Singh, Advocate
---------
08/Dated: 07.07.2025
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral)
1. Heard both sides.
2. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the judgment dt.
05.09.2024 in W.P. (C) No. 2102 of 2022.
3. The said writ petition was filed by Respondents 1 and 2 seeking
the following reliefs:-
(i) For quashing the order dated 21.02.2022 passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Deoghar in Mutation Revision Case No.
22/2017-18 whereby and whereunder the revision preferred by
the petitioners against the order dated 19.02.2018 passed by
the Land Reform Deputy Collector, Deoghar has been
dismissed and direction has been issued to the Circle Officer,
Deoghar to register the names of legal heirs of Jamabandi
raiyat Mahamaya Dasi and further direction has been issued to
the Circle Officer, Deoghar, for lodging a First Information
Report against the petitioner no. 1.
(ii) For quashing the order dated 19.02.2018 passed by the Land
Reform Deputy Collector, Deoghar in Mutation Appeal case
No. 02/2015-16, whereby and whereunder inter alia the order
dated 23.03.2013 passed by the Circle Officer, Deoghar in
Mutation Case No. 1298/2012-13 in relation to the mutation of
property situated at Mauza- Kunda, Thana No. 409, Jamaband
No. 47/32, P.S./Sub Registry/Taluk Deoghar, District Santhal
Pargana in Dag No. 303 (New Dag No. 588, 589 and 590) total
2025:JHHC:18047-DB
measuring 3 bigha, 1 katha and 8 Dhur (hereinafter referred to
as the "said property) in the name of the petitioners has been
set aside on the application filed by the Respondent No. 6
through Respondent No. 7, by exceeding its jurisdiction and
deciding the Title."
in respect of the following lands:-
"Mouza Kunda, Thana No. 409, Jamabandi No. 47/32,
P.S./Sub Registry/Taluk Deoghar, District Santhal Pargana in
Dag No. 303 (New Dag No. 588, 589 and 590) total measuring
3 bigha, 1 katha and 8 Dhur"
4. The proceedings in the instant case arose out of an order dt.
23.03.2013 in Mutation Case No.1298/2012-13, in which a decision
was rendered in favour of the Respondents 1 and 2. This was
challenged by the appellant by filing Mutation Appeal No.02/2015-16,
which was allowed on 19.02.2018 and the order dt. 23.03.2013 in
Mutation Case No.1298/2012-13 was set aside.
5. A revision was filed by the Respondents 1 and 2 being Mutation
Revision Case No.22/2017-18, which was, however, dismissed on
21.02.2022 confirming the order of the Appellate Authority.
6. Challenging both the appellate order as well as the revisional
order, the Respondents 1 and 2 had filed the said writ petition.
7. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge held that
both the Appellate Authority in its order dt. 19.02.2018 and the
Revisional Authority in the order dt. 21.02.2022 have gone into the
issues of title to the property and doubted a sale-deed set up by the
Respondents 1 and 2 and, therefore, they have acted without
jurisdiction. Therefore, the learned Single Judge had quashed both
2025:JHHC:18047-DB
the orders of the Appellate Authority dt. 19.02.2018 and that of the
Revisional Authority dt. 21.02.2022, and directed the parties to work
out their further remedies in accordance with law.
8. Assailing the same, this Letters Patent Appeal is filed.
9. Counsel for the appellant sought to contend that the learned
Single Judge had erred in interfering with the orders of Appellate
Authority dt. 19.02.2018 and the Revisional Authority dt. 21.02.2022.
10. We have perused both the orders.
11. We are satisfied that the learned Single Judge had not
committed any error in interfering with the said orders and as rightly
held by the learned Single Judge in both those orders, the said
Officers had gone into question of title and into the validity of a sale-
deed set up by the Respondents 1 and 2, and it was not proper in a
Mutation proceeding for the said officials to do so.
12. Counsel for the appellant also contended that the mutation
order dt. 23.03.2013 will now be relied upon by the Private
Respondents 1 and 2 in any litigation which the appellant chooses to
initiate.
13. We may clarify that the Supreme Court in several cases
including the judgment in Suraj Bhan and Others v. Financial
Commissioner and Others, (2007) 6 SCC 186, had held an entry in
revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name
appears in the Record of Rights. It was held that entries in revenue
records or jamabandi have only "fiscal purpose" i.e. payment of land
revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of the such
entries. It also held that so far as title to the property is concerned, it
can only be decided by a competent civil court. It also relied on its
2025:JHHC:18047-DB
previous judgment in Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh, (1993) 4 SCC 403,
in support of the said legal principle laid down therein. This principle
has also been reiterated in Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya
Pradesh and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802. This legal principle
has been reiterated in subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court
also.
14. Therefore, we dispose of this appeal by clarifying that the order
in favour of Respondents 1 and 2 dt. 23.03.2013 in Mutation Case
No.1298/2012-13 shall not have any bearing in the civil litigation if
initiated by either parties against each other in a competent civil court
claiming title and other relief.
15. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
16. All pending Interlocutory Application shall stand closed.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Manoj/Sharda/Cp.2
