- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as State counsel on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) IN the instant writ petition order impugned is dated 31st January 2010 (Annexure-5) passed by the Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi in Mutation Case No. 4388R-27/09-2010. An application for restoration under section 71-A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act was moved beyond a period of 60 years in respect of Khata Nos. 303 and 204. The application was much beyond limitation period and, therefore, the request was not allowed. S.A.R. Appeal No. 18R15/1990-91 filed against the said order was also dismissed. An agreement for sale was entered into with the petitioner. After 4 years of dismissal of the aforesaid S.A.R. Appeal, the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance vide Title Suit No. 125 of 2000 for execution of an agreement for sale dated 15.5.1998. The suit was decreed on 7th March 2003 and finally the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner. The mutation application was moved for entering the name of petitioner in the Revenue Record. The mutation application was taken up by respondent no. 3 in the Camp Court on 21.1.2010 and directed for inviting objections from the general public and the case was posted on 31 st January 2010. No objection to the mutation application was filed. Vide order dated 31st January 2010 impugned in the writ petition, the Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi has refused to enter the name of petitioner in the Revenue Record on the basis that decree obtained in the suit for specific performance vide Suit No. 125 of 2000 is collusive one and, therefore, the decree in Title Suit No. 125 of 2000 cannot be given effect to by mutating the name of petitioner. Anchal Adhikari has also adjudicated the merits of the judgment given in the suit.
(3.) COUNSEL for the State has tried to support the impugned order, but he has not been able to substantiate that the respondent no. 3 was vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the merits of the decree. He was only required to examine certain aspects relating to mutation. The submission is that on a bare perusal of the impugned order it is evident that the order is beyond jurisdiction. State counsel has also not been able to substantiate his argument. Evidently the impugned order is beyond the jurisdiction of respondent no.3 and, therefore, has no legs to stand.;