B.B. Mangalmurti,j. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent no.5. No one appears on behalf of the respondent nos.1-4.
(2.) Instant writ application has been filed against the order dated 24th September, 2009 passed in Mutation Revision Case No.18/2009-10, 1/2008-09 arising out of Mutation Appeal No.43/2006-07 and Mutation Case No.19/2004- 05 by which the application filed by the petitioner for mutation has been rejected on the ground that delivery of possession has not been executed in Title Appeal No.10 of 1960. Further prayer was to direct the authorities to mutate the land i.e., Plot Nos.2376, 2377 and 2705 under Khata No.123, Mauza Jamtara in favour of the petitioner in place of his forefather.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that forefather of the petitioner and other had filed Title Suit No.67 of 1955 which was dismissed on 30th November, 1959 and thereafter predecessors of petitioner and others preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No.10 of 1960 which was partly allowed and Plot Nos.2376, 2377 and 2705 under Khata No.123 measuring an area of 1.25 acres were found in favour of the appellant as the contest defendant did not claim any interest in those plots. It is further submitted that petitioner filed an application for mutation pertaining to these plots before the Circle Officer, Dumri, Giridih which was registered as Mutation Case No.1077 of 2003-04 but the same was dismissed on 26th May, 2004 holding that there had been a partition amongst heirs and successors and possession of land in question is disputed. Against the dismissal of mutation case petitioner preferred an appeal before Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih being Case No.05 of 2004-05 which also affirmed the order of the mutation case and thereby dismissed the appeal holding that possession of respondent no.5 Punit Sao was found over Plot Nos.2376, 2377 and 2705. Aggrieved by the said order of Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih he approached the Court of Deputy Commissioner, Giridih being Revision Case No.18 of 2009-10/01 of 2008-09 but the same was also dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that all the three courts have erred in holding that possession was not taken after the judgment of title appeal as no execution case was filed. It is further submitted that this petitioner was all along in possession of those three plots and Plot No.2705 is still vacant, as has been held by the Court of Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih in Case No.05 of 2004-05. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that when the court of Sub-Ordinate Judge, Hazaribag in Title Appeal No.10 of 1960/16 of 1960 passed judgment on 23rd March, 1961 and has held that the defendant did not claim any interest in these three plots and appeal succeeded in part, then the office of Circle Officer could not pass order contrary to the findings held in title appeal regarding the ownership and possession of these three plots to this petitioner.;