Decided on May 12,2022

Shashibhushan Jha Appellant
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents


- (1.) Heard Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rajni Kant Jha, learned counsel for Private Respondent No. 6.
(2.) The appellant had purchased a land vide sale-deed dtd. 8/12/2014 from one Late Ram Chandra Das, of whom, the Private 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 dtd. 16/4/2015 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.
(3.) 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.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.