Shashibhushan Jha vs The State Of Bihar
2022 Latest Caselaw 2813 Patna

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                             Letters Patent Appeal No.277 of 2020
                                              In
                         Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.205 of 2020
         ======================================================

Shashibhushan Jha S/o Late Ramji Jha, resident of Village- Bank, P.O. and P.S. Dandari, District Begusarai.

... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Collector, Begusarai.

2. The Chairman, BIhar Land Tribunal, Patna.

3. The Additional Collector, Begusarai.

4. The Land Reform Deputy Collector, Balia, Begusarai.

5. The Circle Officer, Dandari, Begusarai.

6. Mahant Hare Ram Das, Chela of Late Mahant Ram Chandra Das, Resident at Village Bishanpur, Tola Thakurbari, Gram Panchayat Bank, P.S. Dandari, Sub-Division Balia, District-Begusarai, State Bihar.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Advocate Mr. Om Prakash Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajni Kant Jha, Advocate Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat, AC to AAG-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)

Date : 12-05-2022

Heard Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, learned counsel for the

appellant and Mr. Rajni Kant Jha, learned counsel for Private

Respondent No. 6.

The appellant had purchased a land vide sale-deed dated

08.12.2014 from one Late Ram Chandra Das, of whom, the Private Patna High Court L.P.A No.277 of 2020 dt.12-05-2022

Respondent No. 6 claims to be his disciple. A mutation case was

filed by the appellant vide Mutation Case No. 995 of 2014-15 for

recording his name in the record of rights on the basis of sale-deed.

The aforesaid request was rejected by the Circle Officer by order

dated 16.04.2015 on the ground that the possession and the sale-

deed appeared to be doubtful. This was challenged by the appellant

before the DCLR vide Mutation Appeal No. 14 of 2015-16 on the

ground that it was absolutely unjustified for the Circle Officer to

have doubted the correctness of the sale-deed as he was not

authorized to do the same. The mutation appeal was allowed and

the order of the Circle Officer was set aside. This led to filing of

revision by Private Respondent No. 6 before the Additional Collector

vide Mutation Revision Case No. 30 of 2016-17 which was allowed

by the order of the DCLR in favour of the appellant was set aside.

The matter thereafter was taken to the Tribunal vide BLT Case No.

718 of 2018 where the case of the appellant was allowed and the

order passed by the Additional Collector in Mutation Revision No. 30

of 2016-17, referred to above, was set aside whereas the order of

the DCLR passed in Mutation Appeal No. 14 of 2015-16 was

allowed.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.277 of 2020 dt.12-05-2022

The learned Single Judge while scrutinizing all the above

orders, especially the order passed by the Tribunal, found that it

was flawed for the reason that no definitive finding was given by

either of the authorities with respect to possession of the appellant

for him to qualify for getting his land mutated in the record of

rights.

The learned Single Judge while referring to the provisions

contained in Section 6 of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011

inferred that Sub-clause 13 provides for a situation when the

request for mutation could be rejected and that would be in the

event of an acquirer of an interest in the holding or part thereof

would not be found to have physical possession over that holding or

a part thereof.

The learned Single Judge thereafter found that the Circle

Officer had based his decision on the report of the Revenue

Authority that the appellant was not in possession of the land.

However, with respect to that part of the order of the Circle Officer

which adverted to the issue with respect to the correctness of the

title or genuineness of the sale-deed, was rightly found by the

learned Single Judge to be inappropriate and incorrect in position of Patna High Court L.P.A No.277 of 2020 dt.12-05-2022

law and therefore held that the Tribunal was absolutely justified to

that extent in not endorsing the order of the Circle Officer.

However, the learned Single Judge, while finding that none

of the authorities which had passed an order in favour of the

appellant, had adverted to the issue of possession which was also

one of the grounds for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for

mutation before the Circle Officer and therefore found that even the

Tribunal committed a mistake in leaving that issue open-ended and

not adverting to the same in a definitive way, which alone would

have entitled the appellant to have succeeded in getting his name

mutated in the record of rights.

Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, learned Advocate for the appellant

has submitted that though the matter has been remanded to the

Circle Officer to decide the issue afresh in accordance with the

provisions contained in Sections 5 and 6 of the Bihar Land Mutation

Act, 2011, but by such remand, the entire issue has been re-opened

which could not have been done in view of the sale-deed in his

favour which has not been questioned in any forum whatsoever. He

further submits that such an open-ended remand in fact would open

up the entire issue which the revenue authorities would not have Patna High Court L.P.A No.277 of 2020 dt.12-05-2022

the wherewithals to finally decide. It has also been submitted on

behalf of the appellant that the report of possession in favour of the

private respondent by junior revenue officer is collusive in as much

as the Circle Officer himself had issued certificate of possession in

favour of the appellant. Assuming but not admitting, it has been

argued that this aspect of the matter had not been adverted to by

the Tribunal, that itself would not lead to the inescapable conclusion

that the order passed by the DCLR was bad with respect to

possession and the consequent entitlement of the appellant to have

his name mutated in the record of rights.

As opposed to the aforesaid contention, Mr. Rajni Kant

Jha, learned counsel for the private respondent has submitted that

the Circle Officer, though has recorded a finding that the Title of the

appellant is doubtful but that was not the only issue on which

mutation was refused. It was refused on the ground that the

appellant who claims to be the acquirer of interest in the holding

was not found to be in possession. He further submits that the

appellant has no cause of action or the issue to agitate once the

matter has been relegated to the Circle Officer, the authority of the

first rung which is entrusted with the responsibility and power of Patna High Court L.P.A No.277 of 2020 dt.12-05-2022

taking a decision with respect to mutation as it would only provide a

clean slate to both the parties to have the issue decided.

In response to the aforesaid argument, Mr. Prasad,

learned Advocate for the appellant has reminded this Court that

such remand may not normally be interfered in an Intra Court

appeal but then in the present case, such an open-ended remand

has only resulted in re-opening the whole case especially with

respect to the Title.

The aforesaid apprehension of the learned counsel for the

appellant is incorrect and unfounded.

We find from the order impugned that the matter has

been remanded only to the extent of a determination with respect to

the possession of the appellant for his entitlement for mutation of

his name in the record of rights. However, we do find that certain

observations of the learned Single Judge might prejudice the case of

the appellant, in as much as, the report of the Circle Officer

regarding the possession in favour of the appellant has not been

accepted; perhaps for the reason that it was brought on record later

than the first decision by the Circle Officer, rejecting the claim of

the appellant.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.277 of 2020 dt.12-05-2022

Thus, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge

ought to have decided the issue on the basis of materials available

on record which could have been done by referring to the land

possession certificate of the appellant and taking into account that

there was no question or cloud over the registration of the sale-

deed in his favour with respect to the land in question. Successive

authorities may not have adverted to ancillary or collateral issues

but that would not justify any interference with the order of the

Tribunal. The Tribunal, it appears that from the records, had found

that the Circle Officer, in the first instance, had traversed beyond

his jurisdiction of questioning the correctness of the Title of the

appellant and on that score, set aside the order of the Circle Officer

and affirmed the order of the DCLR which had directed for mutation

of the name of the appellant in the record of rights.

However, since the matter has been remanded to the

Circle Officer for deciding the issue, we only add and clarify that the

Circle Officer, while deciding the issue shall limit his decision to the

extent of the possession of the appellant over the land in question

and shall decide whether the appellant is entitled for mutation. This

entire exercise shall not be expanded into a roving enquiry with Patna High Court L.P.A No.277 of 2020 dt.12-05-2022

respect to the correctness of the title or the authority of the vendor

to sell the property to the appellant and would conclude the

proceeding within a period of two months from the date of

production/receipt of a copy of this order.

With the aforesaid modification, the appeal stands partially

allowed.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

( Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) skm/-

AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date          16.05.2022
Transmission Date