- (1.) The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, dated 8th November, 2008 in Mutation Revision No. 1 of 2008, whereby, an order, passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh, dated 12th December, 2007 in Mutation Appeal No. 26 of 2006 has been quashed and set aside and the order, passed by the Circle Officer, Katkamsandi, Hazaribagh, 11th July, 2006 in Mutation Case No. 736 of 2006-07 has been confirmed. Thus, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition, basically against both the orders of Circle Officer, Katkamsandi, Hazaribagh, as well as Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh.
(2.) It is vehemently submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the land, in question, is Khata No. 1, Plot No. 9, ad-measuring 0.49 Acres, situated at VillageJalima, P.S. Katkamsandi, District, Hazaribagh. Petitioners' father as well as the father of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were the joint owners of the property, in question. There is no partition of the Joint Hindu Family. Despite this fact, the legal heirs of one of the joint owners, namely, late Ram Tahal Mahto have sold away the property to respondent No. 5. Thus, the predecessor-in-title of respondent No. 5 are respondent Nos. 6 and 7, who are the sons of one of the joint owners of the property, in question i.e. Ram Tahal Mahto. Without mutating the names of respondent Nos. 6 and 7, the Circle Officer has mutated the name of respondent No. 5 in the revenue entries. This is an error No. 1 in the order, passed by the Circle Officer. Likewise, second error has also been committed by the Circle Officer to the effect that he has presumed the partition of the Joint Hindu Family. The Circle Officer, being a revenue officer, cannot decide partition between the co-parceners. There is also a third error, as narrated by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, to the effect that the Circle Officer has also presumed the sharers of the co-parceners. This is also de-hors the power and jurisdiction of an officer, working as a revenue officer under the revenue laws, as it is the matter to be decided by the Civil Court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Civil dispute is involved in the matter and the petitioner deny the so-called oral partition and hence, the order, passed by the Circle Officer dated 11th July, 2006 (Annexure 1 to the memo of petition) deserves to be quashed and set aside. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred an appeal being Mutation Appeal No. 26 of 2006 and the appellate authority, namely, Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh, has appreciated the aforesaid arguments of the petitioners and has observed that partition of the property is in dispute and ultimately, the order passed by the Circle Officer was quashed and set aside and it has also been directed correctly by the appellate authority that the parties must take shelter of a civil court. This order was carried in revision, by the private respondents, where the simple proposition, which has been appreciated by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh, has not been properly appreciated by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, and again the same error has been committed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, which has been committed by the Circle Officer. Partition between the coparceners has been presumed; shares of the co-parceners have also been presumed and the order, passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh, has been quashed and set aside. In fact, neither the Circle Officer nor the Deputy Commissioner has properly appreciated the aforesaid contentions that the officers working under the revenue laws cannot presume the partition, cannot presume the shares of the co-parceners and, therefore, the parties ought to have been relegated to the civil court, as has been relegated by the lower appellate court and, therefore, this Court may quash and set aside the order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, and the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, may be directed to decide the revision afresh, in accordance with law, within the stipulated time, as given by this Court.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7, who are the main contesting parties. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 vehemently submitted that there is already a partition between the co-parceners of the property, in question, on the basis of Partition Suit No. 53 of 1945, which was finally decided, upon appointment of an arbitrator, but, it is fairly submitted by the learned Counsel for these contesting respondents that it is a fact that there was no partition between the father of the petitioners and the father of respondent Nos. 6 and 7. The land, in question, was running in the joint name of both the aforesaid persons, namely, Ugan Mahto and Ram Tahal Mahto. It is also fairly submitted by the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 that the names of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were never inserted in the revenue entries and they have sold away the property to respodnent No. 5 by registered sale deed dated 12th September, 2005 and respondent No. 5 thereafter, applied for mutation of his name in the revenue entries and his case was registered as Mutation Case No. 736 of 2006-07, which was allowed by the Circle Officer. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that no error has been committed by the Circle Officer in mutating the name of respondent No. 5, because respondent Nos. 6 and 7n have sold away the property through registered sale deed in favour of respondent No. 5 and the father of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 was already one of the owners of the property, in question. This fact has also been properly appreciated by the revisional authority, while quashing and setting aside the appellate order, passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh and, therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and the order, passed by the Circle Officer, Katkamsandi, Hazaribagh as well as the order, passed by the revisional authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh are absolutely in consonence with the facts and law.;