- (1.) HEARD Mr. Lalit Kumar Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mehta, JC to SC -ll for the State respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 20.9.2001 passed by the Circle Officer (Annexure -3/1) in Mutation Case No. 34 -R -27/2001 -02 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for Mutation. The petitioner also prays for quashing of the Order dated 16.7.2002 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms Ranchi in Mutation Appeal No. 29 -R -15/01 -02 (Annexure -4) whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the Circle Officer to mutate the name of the petitioner and his brother in place of their deceased mother. The facts of this case are that Smt. Kishori Devi Srivastava purchased the land in question on 30.4.1952 by a Registered Deed of sale from one Bandhan Oraon and Budhu Oraon after they had obtained permission from the competent authority vide Order dated 22.4.1952. thereafter the name of the petitioner 'smother was duly mutated vide Mutation Case No. 182 -R -27/1960 - 61. Subsequently, the mother of the petitioner died in August 1966 leaving behind her legal heirs and successors and the rent of the land was paid up to 1987. In the mean time, the sons felt the need to construct and accordingly applied before the RRDA, Ranchi and the RRDA, in its turn, asked the petitioner to get the land mutated in their names. Accordingly, they applied for mutation but by Order dated 20.9.2001 the Circle Officer rejected the application on the ground that the said land was a khatiani Land of Adivasi and that in the Computer List, the land had been recorded as a lease land. Thereafter, an appeal was filed but that was also dismissed by the second impugned order. At paragraph -14, the writ petitioner has stated that the District Registration Officer has also informed that the land in question is not a Khas Mahal Land.
(3.) SO far as Mutation is concerned, the authorities entrusted with the job, are required to only assess as to whether the applicant is in possession or not. Mutation by itself is not a document to show right, title and interest. This Court does not understand as to how the Circle Officer refused the Mutation and that too when the applicants herein are only the successors of a person whose name had already been mutated way back in the year 1961. The instruction for disposal of Mutation Cases (issued on 4/7.1.1963) is also specific on the issue that in matters relating to succession where the recorded tenant is dead, the name of the successor -in -interest should be mutated. The name of the mother of the applicants was already mutated and therefore, there should not have been such objections from the side of the Circle Officer.;