Jharkhand High Court
Baba Baidyanath Medical Trust vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 3 November, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:33094
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 668 of 2025
Baba Baidyanath Medical Trust, having its principal office at DD-5, Dhawandeep
Building, Jantar Matar Road, P.O GPO, P.S Jantar Mantar, Dist-New Delhi-110001
through its authorized representative Pankaj Kumar S/o Shankar Prasad Keshri aged
about 37 years R/o Lawalong, Bazar Tand, P.O and P.S Lawalong, District-Deoghar.
... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Health, officiating
from his office at 'Project Bhawan', P.O and P.S Jaganathpur, Dist-Ranchi.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, officiating from his office at O/o Deputy
Commissioner, Collectorate Building, P.O and P.S Deoghar, District- Deoghar.
3. Circle Officer, Deoghar, officiating from his office at Collectorate Building, P.O and
P.S Deoghar, District- Deoghar. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioner: Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate
Mrs. Smita Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA-III
C.A.V. on 14.10.2025 Pronounced on: 03.11.2025
The Petitioner has, inter alia prayed for quashing of the order
dated 4.12.2024 and 7.01.2025; whereby the mutation application of the
Petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner has further prayed for a
direction upon the Respondent-State for granting mutation in its favour.
2. Mr. Parth Jalan, Ld. Counsel representing the Petitioner-Trust,
submits that the land situated within village Mohanpur, Thana No. 224,
Jamabandi No.11, P.S. Jasidih, District- Deoghar, Plot Nos.301, 309,
310/689, 63, 64, 65, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 87, 88, 193, 197, 204, 282,
308, 339, 340, 341, 352, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367,
368, 369, 370, 375, 381, 408, 417, 453, 81/685, 81 and 74; admeasuring an
area of 26 acres and 50 decimals, along with land, buildings, structure
including all movable items, such as medical machines and equipment,
hospital fixtures and furniture (hereinafter referred to as the 'scheduled
property') originally belonged to M/s Paritran Medical College and
2025:JHHC:33094
Hospital.
3. M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital Trust had taken a
secured loan of ₹ 93,00,00,000/- (INR Ninety-Three Crores Only) from a
consortium of Banks which was led by Punjab National Bank. This loan was
declared a non-performing asset (N.P.A.) and ultimately an original
application being O.A No. 154 of 2013 was filed by the creditor Bank against
M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital (hereinafter referred to as debtor)
for recovery of a total sum of ₹ 1,41,39,09,761.56 (INR One Hundred and
Forty-One Crore Thirty-Nine Lakhs Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and
Sixty-One and Paise Fifty-Six Only) (i.e., principal amount along with the
accrued interest).
The original application was allowed in favour of the Bank and
recovery proceeding was initiated against the debtor and property referred to
hereinabove was put to auction, which was ultimately purchased by the
Petitioner herein. Sale certificate was also issued and possession of the
schedule property was also handed over to the Petitioner by the authority.
However, the debtor assailed the auction sale by filing a writ
petition being WP(C) 165 of 2024 before this Court which was dismissed
vide order dated 13.02.2024, on the ground that the writ petition was not
maintainable.
The order of the Ld. Single Judge was affirmed by the Division
Bench of this Court in LPA No. 167 of 2024 vide order dated 8.8.2024. Even
the Special Leave Petition being SLP(C) 49186 of 2024 filed by the debtor
assailing the order of the LPA was also dismissed on 10.12.2024.
Even, the appeal which was filed by M/s Paritran Medical Trust,
being EDRT No. 87 of 2025, was also been dismissed vide order dated
30.6.2025.
4. It has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner-Trust that
at the behest of M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital Trust, its Security
Guard initiated a proceeding under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar; was pleased to
attach the property and appoint a receiver.
2025:JHHC:33094
The aforesaid action of the Sub-Divisional Officer was assailed
before this Court by filing a writ petition, being WP(Cr) 121 of 2024. The
said writ application was allowed vide order dated 1.8.2024, wherein a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court while allowing the writ petition observed that
the peaceful possession of the property had been handed over to the
Petitioner by adhering to all the procedures prescribed under law and the
action of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar was without jurisdiction.
5. It has been further submitted by the Petitioner that the right, title,
interest and possession of the Petitioner cannot be disputed by the State and
its right to enjoy the property cannot be jeopardized. Further submission is
made that, State is not having any claim over the said property; rather it is
M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital Trust, which continued agitating
its right against the Petitioner but has lost all such litigation. He contended
that the State cannot join as a party to advance the cause of the judgment
debtor who has lost legal battle against the Petitioner and does not have any
right over the scheduled property.
6. Ld. Counsel further contended that the application of the
Petitioner for the grant of mutation has also been rejected by the Respondent
No. 3 on arbitrary grounds. It is pleaded that once mutation and revenue
entries were made in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner,
the denial of the same on technical grounds and vague reasons that the
Petitioner failed to produce the relevant document without indicating as to
which document is to be furnished shows the arbitrariness on the part of the
Respondent-State particularly in the attending facts of the case and where
the Petitioner is an auction purchaser and the physical possession of the
scheduled property is handed over by the competent authority which is an
admitted fact. For purpose of mutation, the authority has to take into
consideration as to whether possession is with the Petitioner or not.
7. Per contra, Ld. Government Advocate-III has raised an objection
to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of an efficacious and
alternate remedy present. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the
Respondent-State that Section 15 of the Bihar Tenant's Holding
(Maintenance of Record) Act, 1973, provides for a remedy of appeal before
the Land Reforms Deputy Collector. It is submitted by the Respondent-
2025:JHHC:33094
State that the orders dated 04.12.2024 and 07.11.2025 themselves state that
the orders are appealable. As an alternate and efficacious remedy is present,
the instant writ petition is not maintainable and is fit to be dismissed in
limine.
8. On merits, it is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent-
State that the land forming the subject matter of the instant writ petition is
mulraiyati. He further submits that the transfer could not have been made in
favour of the Petitioner without complying with the requirement under
Section 20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949. Section 20 of the Act,
1949, mandates that permission has to be secure from the collector before
the transfer is effectuated.
Lastly, Respondent-State has placed reliance on Section 89(2) of
the Registration Act, 1908, to enunciate his argument that the sale certificate
is required to be compulsorily registered, and without the same, no right,
including mutation, can be effectuated in favour of the Petitioner.
9. In rejoinder, the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
mulraiyati is a transferrable right and is not hit by Section 20 of the Santhal
Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949. The provision of Section 89(2) of Registration
Act, 1908 is not applicable in case of auction sale and the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of State of Punjab and Anr v. Ferrous Alloy Forging (P)
Limited (2024 SCC Online SC 3372), has held, that the sale certificate is not
required to be registered. Further, Respondent-State, is trying to improve its
case by way of affidavits as none of this reason is assigned in the impugned
orders.
In so far as alternative remedy is concerned, writ petition is
entertainable in the present facts of the case as it falls within the exceptions
as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in series of judgements that a writ
petition is maintainable where an action of the State suffers from patent
illegality and arbitrariness.
10. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner concluded his argument by
submitting that Mutation is governed by the Bihar Tenant's Holdings
(Maintenance of Record) Act, 1973, and is an administrative exercise only
for the purposes of collection of revenue from the eligible raiyat. The State
cannot travel beyond the scope of the law of mutation and deny entry of the
name of the Petitioner in the record of rights. It is next submitted that once
mutation is carried out in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the
2025:JHHC:33094
Petitioner, the same cannot be denied in favour of the Petitioner.
Ld. Counsel of the Petitioner has placed reliance on the
judgments of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1
SCC 405, Madhaviben Jitendrabhai Rupreliya v. State of Gujarat (2024
SCC Online Guj 4410), Sahid Anwar v. State of Jharkhand (WP(C) 1378 of
2016) and Jitendra Kumar v. State of Jharkhand (WP(C) 1545 of 2025).
11. Heard Ld. Counsel for the rival parties and perused the
documents available on record and the averments made in the respective
affidavits. The records reveal that the Petitioner had purchased the property
forming the subject matter of the instant writ petitions by virtue of an auction
conducted under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. Once
the Petitioner emerged as the successful bidder, a 'Sale Certificate' dated
23.01.2024 was issued in its name. It is also not in dispute that the peaceful
possession of the entire property has been handed over to the Petitioner by
the Bank on 24.01.2024 at 3:17 PM. After securing the possession, the
Petitioner applied for mutation; however, the same was rejected on
04.12.2024 on technical grounds. The second application, filed by the
Petitioner was again rejected vide order dated 07.01.2025 on the ground that
the Petitioner has failed to provide proper documents. This prompted the
Petitioner to knock the door of this Court.
12. A preliminary objection has been raised with respect to the
maintainability of the writ on the ground of an alternate and efficacious right
of statutory appeal being present. The further contention of the State is that
mutation cannot be granted owing to the fact that no permission/sanction
has been taken as mandated under Section 20 of the Santhal Pargana
Tenancy Act, 1949. Further, it is contended that the Sale Certificate is
required to be registered as per Section 89(2) of the Registration Act, 1908.
13. Having regard to the facts stated hereinabove and the arguments
advanced, the following issues have emerged to be decided by this Court: -
a. Whether the instant writ petition is maintainable, in light of the
fact that the orders impugned in the instant writ petition are
appealable ?
b. Whether the impugned orders rejection the Mutation in favour of
the Petitioner-Trust is justified ?
2025:JHHC:33094
c. Whether mutation can be granted in favour of the Petitioner,
considering Section 20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act,
1949, and/or Section 89 of the Registration Act, 1908 ?
14. The Respondents has raised an issue with respect to the
maintainability of the instant writ petition on the ground of an efficacious
and alternate remedy, i.e., a statutory appeal under Section 15 of the Bihar
Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Record) Act, 1973.
It is trite law that the plea pertaining to the 'non-maintainability'
of a writ petition on the ground of an alternate remedy is not absolute. This
issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a series of judgement
and recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of A.P
Electrical Equipment Corporation v. Tahsildar and Ors 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 447 has held as under :-
" 52. In one of the recent pronouncements of this Court in State of U.P, v, Ehsan, 2023
INSC 906, this Court observed that:-
"28. We are conscious of the law that existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on
exercise of writ jurisdiction. More so, when a writ petition has been entertained, parties have
exchanged their pleadings/affidavits and the matter has remained pending for long. In such a
situation there must be a sincere effort to decide the matter on merits and not relegate the writ
petitioner to the alternative remedy, unless there are compelling reasons for doing so. One such
compelling reason may arise where there is a serious dispute between the parties on a question of
fact and materials/evidence(s) available on record are insufficient/inconclusive to enable the Court
to come to a definite conclusion.
15. In the instant case, the facts are not disputed by the State-
Respondent meaning thereby that the title and the possession of the
Petitioner cannot be disputed. It is also not in dispute that the property
forming the subject matter of the instant case was acquired by the Petitioner
by way of an auction. The possession is also not disputed by the State, and
as such, the only question involved is legal issue pertaining to mutation and
the legality of the orders impugned in this order.
Thus, the denial of the mutation in favour of the Petitioner who
happens to be a transferee even when the transferor's name was mutated
suffers from patent illegality and arbitrariness. Accordingly, this Court
holds the instant writ petition to be maintainable and the same can be
entertained by this Court.
2025:JHHC:33094
16. The second and third issues are interconnected which pertains to
the legality of the order dated 4.12.2024 and 7.1.2025, wherein the mutation
applications have been rejected, and whether the mutation can be granted
considering Section 20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949, and/or
Section 89 of the Registration Act, 1908.
17. It is the case of the Respondent-State that the land in question is
mulraiyati in nature and the land cannot be mutated without permission from
the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar as per the requirement under Section
20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949.
17. In this regard it is to be indicated that Mulraiyati is a transferrable
right, subject to certain condition. The sina qua none for the transfer of such
a right is that the right of recorded mulraiyat cannot be subjected to partition
by gift, transfer or otherwise. A mulraiyat is entitled to transfer, by a single
transaction his entire mulraiyati right in a village, including his private
holding. The transferee of a mulraiyati right cannot enjoy his right to the
office of mulriayat until so recognized by the Sub-Divisional Officer. This
is recorded in the statutory rules, notification and orders in Santhal Pargana
Manual, 1911.
In the attending facts of the case, thereof there is no bar in
mutating the land in favour of the Petitioner. The Petitioner can exercise the
rights and duties of its office as mulraiyat in the said village on recognition
by the Sub-Divisional Officer, but so far as the right of enjoyment over the
property acquired by virtue of auction, there is no bar in law.
18. It further transpires from the record that the nature of the land has
been changed from agricultural land to land being used for the purpose of
establishing a medical college as evident from letter dated 6.11.2007 (Page
No. 137 of the writ petition). This fact is not disputed by the State. At this
stage, it is profitable to refer to the judgement of Dhena Hansda and Ors. v.
State of Jharkhand and Ors (2003 SCC Online Jhar 274) and confirmed by
the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Dhena Hansda and Ors. v. State
of Jharkhand and Ors (2010 SCC Online Jhar 802) wherein it is held that
application of Section 20 cannot be invoked where nature of the land has
changed. In light thereof, the argument by Respondent-State made with
2025:JHHC:33094
respect to the application of Section 20 of the Act, 1949 would not stand in
the way of mutation. Since mutation is governed by Bihar Tenants Holdings
(Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 therefore the Circle Officer, is
competent to carry out mutation under Section 14 of the said Act.
19. It has been further argued by the State Counsel that the Sale
Certificate is required to be compulsorily registered under the Registration
Act, 1908 and accordingly, without registration, no mutation could be done.
The law is well settled that in case of Sale Certificate, the same is not
required to be registered. Reference may be made to the recent judgement
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Anr v. Ferrous
Alloy Forging (P) Limited (2024 SCC Online SC 3372), wherein the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that a Sale Certificate is not compulsorily required to
be registered.
In any event, the only requirement for mutation is that the person
concerned must be in possession and the competent authority cannot travel
into the questions of title. In the present case the title of the Petitioner is free
from any ambiguity. In light thereof, I have no hesitation in holding that the
argument advanced by the Respondent-State with respect to Section 89 of
the Registration Act, 1908, has no impact on the application
acceptance/rejection of the mutation case.
20. Now the law is no more res integra that mutation, if exists in
favour of the transferor, the transferee's claim for mutation cannot be
denied. Reference may be made to the case of Sahid Anwar v. The State of
Jharkhand (WP(C) 1378 of 2016), this Court has held as under:-
" 8. It is an admitted position that though the land in question was originally
recorded as 'Gair Mazarua Khas' in the Revisional Survey Records of Right and
the Jamabandi in respect of the said land had been running in the name of Mehboob
Ali and the vendor of the petitioner, namely, Gulam Rasool. On the basis of the said
Jamabandi, the respondents all along accepted the rent and recognized the
predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner as raiyats in respect of the said land since
long. The petitioner is a purchaser of the said land. After purchasing the said land,
he applied for mutation in his favour before the Circle Officer, Kasmar, Bokaro (the
respondent No.6), however, the same was kept pending since 2013. Though the said
land is recorded as 'Gair Mazarua Khas' in the Revisional Survey Records of Right,
the State had recognized the tenancy right of the processors-in-interest of the
petitioner by accepting the rent for last several decades. Their names had been
running in the Tenant's Ledger/RegisterII maintained in the Circle Office since long
without objection from any quarter. The respondent No.6 is not the authority to
decide the right, title and interest of any person over the land while deciding the
mutation case or granting the rent receipt. The respondents have not disputed that
the petitioner is not in possession of the said land. Merely because the land was
recorded as 'Gair Mazarua Khas' in the Revisional Survey Records of Right does
2025:JHHC:33094
not permit the Circle Officer to deny the mutation."
Further, in the case of Jitendra Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand
(WP(C) 1545 of 2025), this Court directed the Circle Officer to pass an order
of mutation failing which he would be liable to pay a cost of ₹ 50,000/- (INR
Fifty Thousand Only).
21. As a matter of fact, Mutation is not a judicial or a quasi-judicial
exercise but is purely administrative in nature. The purpose of mutation is
simply to ascertain who is to pay rent to the public exchequer and is only
for fiscal purposes. This issue has already been adjudicated in the case of
Anil Kumar Bajaj v. State of Jharkhand and Ors (2024 SCC Online Jhar
4097). The relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced as under:-
14....... Moreso, when the exercise of creation/opening of a new jamabandi itself,
does not is not a judicial or a quasi-judicial process. Reference in this regard is
made to the judgment rendered in the case of Depta Tewari v. State of Bihar, 1987
PLJR 1037. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under for ready
reference:--
"8. In my view the Officers passing the orders on mutation matter do not
exercise any judicial or quasi-judicial function. They arrive at a decision of
possession on the basis of the evidence placed before them including the
reports of the officers concerned.....
22. Lastly, the orders impugned in the instant case, does not mention
anything about the lack of jurisdiction of the Circle Officer, owing to the
mulraiyati nature of the land. I find substance in the argument made by the
Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that the State cannot improve its case and the
reliance placed on the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election
Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405. For brevity, relevant portion of the
judgement is reproduced as under for ready reference: -
"8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes
an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so
mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or
otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to
court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought
out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas
Bhanji [Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR
1952 SC 16] :
"Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be
construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the
order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do.
Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are
intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and
must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order
itself." Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.
2025:JHHC:33094
23. Having regard to the attending facts of the case, applicable laws
and material available on record, the order dated 4.12.2024 and 7.1.2025, is
hereby, quashed and set-aside being illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, the
concerned Respondent is directed to complete the process of mutation by
making the necessary entry in Register-II and issue revenue rent receipts in
favour of the Petitioner within a period of 4 (Four) weeks from the date of
receipt/production of copy of this order.
24. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Pending I.As., if any,
also stands closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
November 03, 2025
Fahim/-
AFR/-
Uploaded on
06/11/2025
