In The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Civil Writ Jurisdiction) W.P. (C) No. 7685 of 2011 ....

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)

W.P. (C) No. 7685 of 2011
….....
Gunuwa Munda, son of Late Budhua Munda, resident of Village –
Hesal, Karanj Toli, P.S. - Sukhdeonagar, P.O. - Hehal, District –
Ranchi.
…. ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.
3. The Circle Officer, Kanke …. ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

….........
For the Petitioner : None.
For the Respondents/State : Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V
Ms. Shilpi, A.C. to
Mr. Amit Kumar, S.C. (Mines)-II.
........
06/28.03.2022.
Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, learned
counsel for the respondents / State, Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V and
learned counsel, Ms. Shilpi, A.C. to Mr. Amit Kumar, S.C. (Mines)-
II are present.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the State, Mr.
Manish Mishra, G.P.-V assisted by learned counsel, Ms. Shilpi, A.C.
to Mr. Amit Kumar, S.C. (Mines)-II that the judgment and decree are
of the year 1966, though the petitioner Gunuwa Munda applied for
mutation vide Mutation Case No. 1783R27/2010-11 after
approximately 44 years. It has been further stated by the counsel for
the State that in counter affidavit dated 17.04.2012 filed by the State
through Sanjay Kumar, son of Ayodhya Prasad, Circle Officer,
Kanke, at para-6, that on spot inquiry, it has been found that
petitioner is not in possession over the land and as such, the
application for mutation of the land in question has been rejected by
the Circle Officer, Kanke.
Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V has
further submitted that nothing has been written in the counter
affidavit with regard to possession over the land by somebody else.
From perusal of materials brought on record, it appears that it
is a serious issue, as such, this Court is taking the entire fact in this
order.
-2-
The petitioner has applied for mutation on 06.07.2010 before

the Circle Officer, Kanke on the ground that petitioner is entitled for
0.81½ acres of land, out of 1.63 acres of land of Khata No. 61, Plot
No. 917, 1232, 1233, situated at Village – Tender, P.S.- Kanke,
District – Ranchi, as rest of the land was fall in the share of one
Birsa Munda. The petitioner has claimed the land on the basis of
judgment passed in Title Suit No. 84/1967. The Circle Officer,
Kanke vide impugned order dated 04.08.2010 has recorded that
public notice ( vke lqpuk ) was published and the service report was
received and nobody had put any objection.
The mutation has been rejected by the Circle Officer, Kanke
on the basis of report submitted by the concerned Halka Karamchari
and Circle Inspector, that on spot inquiry, it was found that neither
the applicant nor his ancestors have possession over the land in
question.
This Court fails to understand the legal acumen of the then
Circle Officer, Kanke, who has passed the impugned order dated
04.08.2010, as possession can be of two types, notional as well as
physical. If a person has a decree by a competent civil court of law,
which has not been assailed by anybody and if the Government is not
claiming the said land, it means that the decree holder is in notional
possession over the same. Decree holder, apart from constructing a
house or utilizing the land or keeping the land vacant is in notional
possession of the same. As such, the report, on which the Circle
Officer, Kanke has placed reliance, as submitted by concerned Halka
Karamchari and Circle Inspector are not binding upon the Circle
Officer their superior authority in the revenue department.
This Court has experienced that all the Circle Officers being
the lowest Gazetted Officers in the revenue department are taking
shelter for their illegal order of the report submitted by Halka
Karamchari and Circle Inspector for their protection.
The Division Bench of this Court has already deprecated such
act of the revenue department in L.P.A. No. 142/10 with L.P.A. No.
307/2009, whereby Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has made
-3-
observation in para-10 (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) which are being quoted
here:-
(d) Petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 2900 of 2007 and
Petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 4452 of 2008, who are the
husband and wife have purchased small piece of land
ad-measuring 20 decimals each from Rang Nath Sahu
by registered sale deeds dated 04.05.1992 and
07.07.1992.
(e) They applied for mutation entry and the application
was treated as Mutation Case No. 183R 27/1993-1994
before the Circle Officer, Town, Anchal and it was
allowed. Thus, mutation entries were carried out in the
name of the purchasers and petitioner of W.P. (C) No.
2900 of 2007 as well as petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 4452
of 2008 from 1993-1994.
(f) These entries have also been continued for several
years and abruptly in the year 2002, Halka
Karamchari, who is lowest in the rank of Revenue
Offices, has made a remark that the land in question
is a Gair Majaruwa Malik Land from the year 1942.
(g) Thus, after 60 long years, the wisest man, who is
lowest in the rank, in the revenue offices of the State
of Jharkhand wrote one line that the land in question
is Gair Majaruwa Malik Land and the high ranking
Administrative Officers of the Revenue Department
build a castle upon it, which has resulted into several
revenue litigations and two writ petitions and two
Letters Patent Appeals.
(h) Thus, it appears that the State Government is
relying upon one line report given by the Halka
Karamchari that land in question is a government land.
If this is the stand of the government, the State
Government can file a Civil Suit so that the title of the
property can be decided or the ownership of the
-4-
property can be decided by the competent Trial Court.

Ownership can always be decided by the civil courts.
There is a presumption in favour of the holder of the
mutation entry, especially, when any mutation entry is
much older in point of time.
(Emphasis supplied)
It appears to this Court, that Halka Karamchari, who is the
lowest in the rank of the revenue offices has made a remark, on
which the castle are being built by the higher revenue authorities.
This Court deprecates such act of the Circle Officer. It seems that the
then Circle Officer, Kanke is not fit to be posted as Circle Officer or
in the Revenue Department because he has created mess of the
system.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed, as the writ petitioner
has title over the land, nobody has objected and State has never
claimed this land, as it is apparent from the counter affidavit filed by
the respondents / State.
It is incumbent upon the Circle Officer, Kanke to mutate the
land in favour of the petitioner.
However before parting with the judgment, this Court directs
the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration
and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand to take legal action
against such Circle Officers, who are relying upon report of Halka
Karamchari for creating mess in the revenue records, which shows
lack of proper understanding of the mutation law by such officers. It
is incumbent upon the Circle Officers to submit their own report in
revenue matter than to rely upon report submitted by the Halka
Karamchari or Circle Inspector.
Let a copy of order be communicated to the Additional Chief
Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms,
Government of Jharkhand for taking legal action against the such
officers in accordance with law.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

Sunil/-

In The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Civil Writ Jurisdiction) W.P. (C) No. 7685 of 2011 ....

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Civil Writ Jurisdiction) W.P. (C) No. 7685 of 2011 ....

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

In The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Civil Writ Jurisdiction) W.P. (C) No. 7685 of 2011 ....

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

The petitioner has applied for mutation on 06.07.2010 before

property can be decided by the competent Trial Court.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

You might also like