M.T.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THESE writ applications have been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 19.3.2001 passed by Circle Officer, Ghatshila, whereby he has rejected the application of the petitioners for mutation of petitioners land and dismissed the mutation cases filed by the petitioners.
(2.) PETITIONERS claimed to have purchased the land in question by virtue of registered deeds of sale. After purchase the petitioners applied for mutation of the land by filing four applications which were registered as Mutation Case Nos. 323/2000 -2001. 322/2000 -2001, 325/2000 -2001 and 324/ 2000 -2001. The Circle Officer, Ghatshila rejected the applications and refused to mutate the respective lands on the ground that the sale deeds were executed outside the State. Mr. S.L. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in similar case filed by Smt. Bela Pandey being CWJC No. 2903/98R this Court quashed the order of the Circle Officer and allowed the writ application in terms of order dated 26.6.2000. Learned counsel submitted that the decision of this Court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLA (Civil) No. 8080/2000. Learned counsel submitted that the Circle Officer is only competent to see the possession of the petitioners to decide the question of mutation and cannot refuse to mutate the land on the ground that the registration was done at Calcutta.
(3.) IN course of argument, learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 5522/2001 and other analogous cases. The order reads as under : - - "All the petitioners claim to have purchased certain respective piece of land from Shri Dhiru Bhai C. Dave by registered sale deeds No. 4839, 4840, 4841 and 4842 all dated 2.8.1996. Their grievance is that the respondent -Circle Officer, Dhanbad has not registered the applications for mutation of their respective land on the ground that the sale deeds were executed outside the State. According to counsel for the petitioners, in terms with the decision of this Court in Smt. Bela Pandey v. State of Bihar and Ors., CWJC No. 2903/98 (R), disposed of on 26.6.2000, as affirmed by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 4.12.200 passed in SLA (Civil) No. 8080/2000, the respondent - Circle Officer is only liable to see the possession of one or other petitioner to decide the question of mutation and cannot refuse to mutate the land on the ground that the registration was made at Calcutta. It is a settled law that mutation of land/creation of Jamabandi does not create any right and title in favour of one or other. It is merely allows a person, to enter his name in Register II for the purpose of payment of rent. It is always open to the competent authority to determine as to whether the name should be entered in Register II or not taking into consideration the factual aspect relating to possession. However, if any application for mutation/ Jamabandi is preferred by one or other person, the competent authority cannot refuse to register the case and is bound to decide it in one or other way. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioners are given liberty to approach the Circle Officer, Dhanbad and may prefer fresh petition for mutation of land in question. If any such application is preferred by petitioners within one month, the Circle Officer, Dhanbad will entertain, register them and will pass appropriate reasoned order after notice and hearing the concerned parties, in accordance with law, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of representation. It may be mentioned that this Court has not decided the individual claim of petitioners on merit. All the writ petitions stand disposed of, with the aforesaid observations/directions.";