Jharkhand High Court

Sudhir Chandra Modi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 November, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                                            2025:JHHC:33586-DB




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
           L.P.A. No. 532 of 2025
                                      -----

Sudhir Chandra Modi, aged about 74 years, son of Late Loknath Modi, resident of village - Teliatu, P.O. Barkakana, P.S. Patratu, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand. ... ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand, through The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, At Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh (Jharkhand)

2. Land Reforms Deputy Collectory, At Ramgarh, P.O. +P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh (Jharkhand)

3. Circle Officer, Patratu, At Patratu, P.O. +P.S. Patratu, District Ramgarh (Jharkhand) ... ... ... Respondents

-------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

-------

For the Petitioner :Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Deo, Advocate For the Respondent :Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G-IA :Ms. Omiya Anusha, A.C. to A.A.G.-IA

------

Order No.07/Dated 11th November, 2025

1. The instant appeal under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 26.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 923 of 2024, by which the prayer for a direction upon the concerned Circle Officer for the issuance of rent receipt by inserting his name in the revenue record has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.923 of 2024, required to be enumerated, which reads as under: -

(i) The original raiyats' land in Thana No. 77 of Ramgarh District, totaling 5.00 acres, was acquired for the expansion of the Barkakana Railway Yard. After development, some land remained unused. The unused land was sold to Babu Narayan Mishra in 1939. After his death, his daughter Tara Devi sold this land to Loknath Modi in 1972, and his name was mutated in the state records.

Page 1 2025:JHHC:33586-DB

(ii) Loknath Modi passed away, leaving five sons: Sudhir Chandra Modi, Umesh Prasad Modi, Dayanand Modi, Omprakash Modi, and Nagendra Modi. They partitioned the land in 2018, and the petitioner received 5.00 acres in Mauza Barkakana, Thana No. 77.

(iii) The petitioner applied for succession mutation, but the Halka Karmchari and Circle Inspector reported that certain plots belonged to Schedule Tribes or Gairmajarua Khata. The mutation application was rejected on 23.07.2022. Appeals and revision petitions were dismissed. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the mutation revision on 01.09.2023, citing the Land Acquisition Act, which requires unutilized acquired land to revert to original owners or the government land bank. Mutation cannot be granted unless the civil court decides the title.

Thana No. Khata No. Plot No. Area (Acre) Remarks

77 02 649 0.12 Purchased by petitioner's father

77 16 676 0.12 Recorded in the name of Bodha Munda

77 40 658 1.70 Land of Bakast Khata

77 49 677 0.10 Recorded in the name of Dular Munda

77 53 671 0.45 Recorded in the name of Mdang Shah

77 55 672 0.23 Khatian torn out

Page 2 2025:JHHC:33586-DB

77 71 684 0.24 Recorded in the name of Rusna Pahan

77 77 673 1.66 Gairmajarua Khata

77 77 674 0.38 Gairmajarua Khata

Total 5.00 Acre

3. It is evident from the factual aspect that the land in question was originally in the name of the father of the appellant/writ petitioner, namely Loknath Ram Modi, who has since passed away, leaving behind five sons, including the appellant/writ petitioner. During his lifetime, the father of the appellant/writ petitioner partitioned the property among his five sons. The appellant/writ petitioner is one of the holders of the partitioned property and is residing in his respective portion based on the family arrangement.

4. The appellant/writ petitioner made an application for the insertion of his name in the revenue records, but the same was rejected, which led him to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. The ground taken by the mutating authority was that the land claimed by the appellant/writ petitioner does not have an independent title rather, he is a co-sharer in the property in question.

5. On the other hand, the case of the State is that the father of the appellant/writ petitioner did not have any title over the land in question. Rather, the land had been acquired by the Railways before independence. As such, it is incorrect on the part of the appellant/writ petitioner to contend that his father had an independent title over the said land and that he has consequently inherited that title.

Page 3 2025:JHHC:33586-DB

6. The learned Single Judge considered the aforesaid aspects of the matter and dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the issue involved pertains to a dispute of title. However, liberty was reserved to the appellant/writ petitioner to approach the competent court of civil jurisdiction, which is the subject matter of the present appeal.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner has submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration the issue of long possession over the land in question. It has been submitted that the father of the appellant/writ petitioner had been in possession of the said land since 1972, which is sufficient to establish his title. Based on that, if any application was made by one of the sons of the deceased father, the mutating authority ought to have considered the aspect of possession before passing the order of mutation in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner. However, the same was not done, nor was this aspect appreciated by the learned Single Judge, hence the present appeal.

8. While On the other hand, Mr. Jai Prakash, learned A.A.G.-I(A), assisted by Ms. Omiya Anusha, A.C. to A.A.G.-I(A), has submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the appellant/writ petitioner to take the ground that merely on the basis of possession, mutation is to be created in a case of serious dispute of title, which had been agitated on behalf of the State before the learned Writ Court by filing a counter affidavit, wherein stand, inter alia, was taken that the land was acquired during the British era for the purpose of its utilization for the railway.

9. The appellant/writ petitioner, although claiming title on the basis of possession, is required, in a case involving a serious dispute of title, to have the title declared even if it is based on possession by taking a plea of adverse possession. For this purpose, the

Page 4 2025:JHHC:33586-DB

appellant/writ petitioner is required to approach the competent court of civil jurisdiction.

10. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the serious dispute regarding title, which led the learned Single Judge not to interfere with the decision taken by the authority. However, liberty was reserved to the appellant/writ petitioner to approach the competent civil court, and therefore, the order cannot be said to suffer from any error.

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order/judgment, as well as the material available in the memo of appeal, which has been incorporated from the writ petition and the counter affidavit.

12. The learned Single Judge passed an order declining to direct the revenue authority to pass an order in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner, mutating the land in his favour. The reason for reaching such a conclusion is the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, wherein the issue of a serious dispute of title was raised. According to the State, the land had been acquired in favour of the Railways during the British era.

13. The learned Single Judge considered the aforesaid aspects of the matter and, based on the same, refused to pass any positive direction upon the mutating authority to mutate the land in question in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner, thereby declining to interfere with the order dated 01.09.2023 in Mutation Revision Case No. 19/2023, the order dated 21.12.2022 in Mutation (Online) Appeal No. 73/2022-23, and the order dated 23.07.2022 in Mutation Case No. 184 R 27/2022-23.

14. It appears from the impugned order that the appellant/writ petitioner was granted liberty by the Writ Court, as per the order

Page 5 2025:JHHC:33586-DB

dated 02.01.2025, to file a supplementary affidavit bringing on record the order of mutation with respect to the land in question, passed by the competent authority in favour of the father of the appellant/writ petitioner. The supplementary affidavit was filed on 18.03.2025, bringing on record the certified copy of the entire order sheet of Mutation Case No. 4/1973-74. On 17.02.2025, the concerned Clerk informed that the record was not available. Subsequently, one rent receipt from 1974 was found in the outhouse of the appellant/writ petitioner and shown to the clerk of the Circle Officer's office; notwithstanding this, the record of Mutation Case No. 4/1973-74 could not be traced. Thereafter, the application dated 17.02.2025 was endorsed to indicate that the record of Mutation Case No. 4/1973-74 had been searched by the peon of the office, but it could not be located. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, come to the conclusion that since the copy of the order of mutation passed by the competent authority has not been brought on record, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order.

15. This Court is of the considered view that, based on the aforesaid considerations given by the learned Single Judge, and in the absence of any document supporting the rent receipt purportedly issued in favour of the father of the appellant/writ petitioner based on a valid document, the order of the mutating authorities, even when examined up to the level of revisional jurisdiction, cannot be said to suffer from any error. Moreover, as submitted by the learned State counsel, the ground taken in the counter affidavit that the land has been acquired in favour of the Railways also requires adjudication regarding the issue of title. For this purpose, the learned Single Judge has already granted liberty to the appellant/writ petitioner to approach the competent authority for the declaration of right, title, and possession over the land in question.

Page 6 2025:JHHC:33586-DB

16. Consequently, this Court is of the view that no interference is required in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 26.03.2025 in W.P.(C) No. 923 of 2024 impugned in the present appeal.

17. The instant Letters Patent Appeal is hereby dismissed.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

11.11.2025 Umesh/Abhishek

A.F.R.

Uploaded on 13.11.2025

Page 7