Jharkhand High Court
Dilip Dandapat vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 March, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 599 of 2024
------
Dilip Dandapat, Son of late Bhuvan Chandra Ghosh
Dandapat, aged about 77 years, resident of village and P.O.
Dobo, P.S. Chandil, District-Seraikella-Kharsawan.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan, P.O. and
P.S.Seraikella, District- Seraikella-Kharsawan.
3. Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Chandil, P.O. and P.S.
Chandil, District- Seraikella-Kharsawan.
..... Respondents/Respondents
4. M/s. Jamshedpur Agro Farms, a partnership firm
registered under the provision of Indian Partnership Act,
1932, P.O. Bistupur, P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur,
District-East Singhbhum and working office at Industrial
Area, Adityapur, P.O. and P.S. Adityapur, District-
Seraikella-Kharsawan, through its partner Mr. Rajeev
Singh Dugal, aged about 63 years, son of late P.S.
Dugal, resident of 4 Jublee Road, P.O. and P.S.
Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum.
...... Petitioner/Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Appellants : Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv
For the Respondents : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. S.C.-II
------
05/24.03.2025
This letters patent appeal is preferred challenging the
judgment dated 24th July, 2024 of the learned Single Judge in
W.P.(C) No. 490 of 2020, the appellant herein who was the 4th
respondent in the said writ petition.
2. The 4th respondent herein had filed the said writ
petition for quashing of an order dated 10.08.2018 passed in
Mutation Revision No. 02/2016-17 by the Deputy
Commissioner, Seraikella Kharsawan and also an appellate
order passed by the DCLR, Chandil, Seraikella Kharsawan in
Mutation Appeal Case No. 23/2013-14 dated 15.09.2015.
The 4th respondent herein had claimed that he had
purchased certain land under a registered sale deed dated
15.04.2011 and on the basis of the said sale deed, mutation
was affected in its favour by a correction slip dated
16.03.2012.
Thereafter, the appellant initiated proceedings
challenging the said mutation on the ground that he was not
an executant of the said sale deed.
The original authority rejected the claim of the
appellant but the appeal being mutation Appeal No. 23 of
2013-14 filed by the appellant was allowed.
3. It was contended on behalf of the 4th respondent
before the learned Single Judge that the appellate authority
had travelled beyond its jurisdiction and had entered into
merits of the sale deed and in that way the Appellate
Authority had decided title to the property, which jurisdiction
is exclusively with the Civil Court, and not with the Revenue
Authorities, and that the Deputy Commissioner had also
erred in confirming the order passed by the Appellate
Authority.
4. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides,
took the view that on the basis of a sale deed executed in
favour of the 4th respondent, transfer of mutation had been
done and whether or not the appellant was a family member
who should have been joined as an executant to the sale deed
is a question of fact to be decided only by a competent Civil
Court. He therefore, set aside the orders of the Appellate
Authority as well as the Revisional Authority and granted
liberty to the appellant to work-out his remedy in accordance
with law.
5. The counsel for the appellant sought to contend that
the order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous.
The fact remains that if he was not a party to the sale
deed executed by the vendors in that sale deed, and on the
basis of the sale deed mutation was transferred in favour of
the 4th respondent, the remedy open to the appellant was to
approach the Civil Court, prove that he is also one of the co-
owners of the property which is subject-matter of the sale
deed and seek to have the sale deed set aside.
Without challenging the sale transaction, it is not
open to him to merely challenge the mutation.
Therefore, we affirm the order of the learned Single
Judge and grant liberty to the appellant to approach the Civil
Court for appropriate relief.
6. The appeal, therefore is dismissed with observations
as above.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Fahim/Amardeep
