- (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) PETITIONER has challenged the order dated 20.2.2003 (Annexure -8), passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur (respondent No. 3) in Mutation Appeal No. 39 of 2000 - 01, rejecting the appeal and affirming the order dated 23.8.1996, passed in Mutation Case No. 298/1994 by the Circle Officer, Jug -salai, Jamshedpur. Petitioner's case, in short, is that: after purchasing the land in question, he is in possession thereof. A Title Suit No. 107 of 1988 was filed regarding the land in question against Swarn Singh and others for declaration that the defendants have no right, title and interest over the suit land and for restraining them from interfering with the possession of the petitioner (plaintiff). The suit was decreed on 29.7.1989 by learned Additional Munsif, Jamshedpur. Petitioner filed execution case No. 4/1990, in which TISCO filed an objection, which was rejected on 14.2.1990. Against which, TISCO filed Civil Revision No. 62/1990 (R), which was also dismissed on 9.4.1990. Petitioner filed Mutation case No. 298/1994 -95. The Circle Officer rejected the said case on 23.8.1996, against which petitioner filed appeal being Mutation Appeal No. 39/ 2000 -01, but the same was dismissed on 20.2.2003 without discussing the relevant factor of possession of petitioner for the purpose of mutation. Therefore it is submitted that the respondents be directed to mutate the name of petitioner for the land in question.
(3.) ACCORDING to the respondents: the land in question was recorded in the last survey as "Gairabad Malik", which has been leased to TISCO. The alleged predecessor of petitioner did not acquire right on the basis of a purported "Sada Hukumnama". There is nothing to show that the ex - landlord mentioned about the said settlement in his return. Petitioner filed a collusive suit and obtained ex -parte decree without making the State Government or the TISCO as party. Even in the order dated 9.4.1990, passed in Civil Revision No. 62 of 1990 (R), it was observed that the TISCO being not a party to the decree is not bound thereby and could file a suit and could also ask for an order of injunction restraining the decree holder from proceeding with the execution case. The entire area claimed by the petitioner is recorded in the name of State of Bihar with TISCO as lessee even in the final record of rights prepared on the basis of new survey and settlement conducted in 1996. Petitioner is not in possession of the lands in question. Moreover, there is difference in the plot numbers and their areas and their location. Therefore, it is submitted that no other should be issued directing the State -respondents to mutate the name of the petitioner. ;