S.N. Pathak, J. - (1.) Heard Learned Counsel For The Parties.
(2.) Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to direct the respondents authorities to mutate the land of Jamabandi No. 6 of Mauza - Chandpur and further to quash the order dated 27.06.1998, passed by Additional Collector, Deoghar in Rev. Misc. Appeal No. 67/93 - 94 by which he had upheld the order dated 28.02.1994, passed by Deputy Collector, Land Reform, Deoghar in Mutation Case No. 3/93 - 94 and thereafter, to remand the matter to consider the mutation afresh.
(3.) Case Of Petitioner In Narrow Campass Is That Plot Nos. 560, 561, 562, 796, 1140 and 1143 of Mauza - Chandpur, appertaining to Jamabandi No. 6 of Mauza - Chandpur No. 261, P.S. Jasidih and the same stands recorded in the name of Most. Kamli Mahatwain, wife of Fulo Mahato in 'Purcha' of the last survey settlement. Claim of the petitioner is on the basis of genealogical table, as mentioned in paragraph5 of the writ petition. Kalabati Devi, grand mother of the petitioner was married with Debi Mahato of Village - Chandpur. The recorded tenant - Kamali Mahatwain, during her life time, used to cultivate all lands and properties with the help of her husband's sister Kalabati Devi. Kamali Mahatwain died issueless in the year 1938 leaving behind Kalabati Devi as her nearest heir who, on her death, inherited and succeeded all her lands and properties of Jamabandi No. 6 of Mauza - Chandpur and started possessing the same with her husband - Debi Mahato, who also started paying rent. Yasoda Devi, another sister of husband of Kamali Mahatwain, had predeceased her. After death of Kamali Mahatwain in the year 1938, Debi Mahato also died in the year 1940. After death of Debi Mahato, the grandfather of opposite party namely Madhu Mahato started claiming land of Jamabandi No. 6 in question. The dispute however was amicably settled and lands of Jamabandi No. 6 was divided between Madhu Mahato and Bandhu Mahto including his mother Kalabati Devi. In the said amicable partition, entire Plot Nos. 560, 562 and 1143, the NorthWestern and South Eastern portion of Bari Plot No. 561, area 0.24 Acres of the said Jamabandi No. 6 had fallen to the share of Kalabati Devi and her son Bandhu Mahato, the total area of which was 58 Decimals and entire plot nos. 796 and 1140 besides the remaining portions of Plot No. 1143, in all measuring total 57 Decimals, had fallen to the share of Madhu Mahto, the grand father of opposite 1st party and accordingly the said persons began to separately cultivate and possess their respective share of lands. Bandhu Mahato remained all along in possession of the land and after his death in the year 1957, his wife Durpatia Devi, son Palku Mahto and daughter - Godabari Devi (petitioner) inherited and succeeded all the land and properties including the land of Jamabandi No. 6 allotted to the share of Kalabati and Bandhu Mahto. After death of Bandhu Mahto, his son Palku Mahto also died and there remained Durpatia Devi and petitioner - Godabari Devi in the family. Durpatia Devi also died in the year 1974 and thereafter, petitioner remained as a sole surviving owner in the family and she continued to possess the land of Bandhu including the land in question. In the year 1948, Bandhu Mahto had exchanged Plot No. 1143 of Jamabandi No. 6 of his share with one Nathu Mahato of village - Chandpur for his Plot No. 623 of Chandpur over which Bandhu Mahto had constructed his house wherein petitioner along with her family members were residing. The Plot No. 1143 given in exchange is in possession of Kamal Mahato, son of Nathu Mahato. Similarly, Madhu Mahto remained in possession of only his share of land in Jamabandi No. 6 which was allotted to him and on his death, his son Chhaku Mahato and after his death, his sons Bhado Mahto and Shibu Mahto have been possessing the same and both branches had been paying the rent by contributing half and half. It is case of the petitioner that opposite 1st party therein, suppressing the real facts, wrongly applied for mutation of Plot Nos. 560, 561, 562, 796, 1140 and 1141, falsely claiming himself to be "Nati" of recorded tenant by filing a petition before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Deoghar on 15.02.1993, which gave rise to Mutation Case No. 3 of 1993 - 94. Said Deputy Collector called for a report from the Circle Officer, Deoghar who did not enquire into the matter and simply forwarded the socalled procured enquiry report submitted by Karamchari. Being aggrieved by the order of Deputy Collector, Land Reform, Deoghar dated 28.02.1994 in Mutation Case No. 3/93 - 94, petitioner approached before the Additional Collector, Deoghar, in Rev. Misc. Appeal No. 67/93 - 94, which was also disposed of vide order dated 27.06.1998 upholding the order of Deputy Collector, Land Reform, Deoghar. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, petitioner has approached before this Court.;