D.G.R. Patnaik, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri L.K.lal, learned counsel for the respondent State of Jharkhand. 2. The petitioners' prayer in this writ application is for an order commanding upon the respondent authorities to correct the revenue records i.e. Register-II of village Kokar in respect of R.S. Khata No. 91, 186 and 228, by substituting the names of the petitioners in pursuance of the judgement dated 01.08.2007 passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 430 of 1999 (R).
(2.) Sri Indrajit Sinha would explain that the petitioners are admittedly the owners of the land in question. Earlier, under the impression that a portion of the petitioners' land was surplus, an order was passed in a proceeding under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and substantial portion of the petitioners' land was taken over by the State Government. The petitioners challenged the same by filing a writ application before this Court which moved from Division Bench to the Supreme Court and ultimately the matter was remitted back and the dispute was referred to the Deputy Commissioner for taking a fresh decision on the issue involved, on the basis of the pleadings made by the petitioners. Learned counsel explains further, that earlier a portion of land was given to the Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav College pursuant to an agreement for establishing the college and the land is presently in occupation of the college though acknowledging the title of the petitioners over the land. Learned counsel submits further that as informed, the Deputy Commissioner after reconsideration, has taken a decision whereby the total area of surplus land as declared earlier, has been corrected and the surplus area has been now reduced to 2620 Sq. Mtrs only while acknowledging and declaring that the remaining portion of earlier acquired land be released in favour of the petitioners. Learned counsel submits further that in the light of such decision taken by the Deputy Commissioner finally, the petitioners' title over the land in question, excluding the land which has been declared surplus, cannot now be disputed and there can be no impediment on the part of the respondent authorities to mutate the petitioners' names in the revenue records.
(3.) Sri L.K.Lal, while arguing on behalf of the respondent State, would want to explain that the Deputy Commissioner has taken a final decision under which there has been a modification in as much as the total area of surplus land has now been assessed and confined to 2620 Sq. Mtrs and the petitioners' ownership continues to be acknowledged over the remaining portions of land, but the fact remains that the petitioners are not in actual physical possession of the lands, since it is the Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav College which is in actual possession and on account of the earlier order of stay imposed by the Supreme Court, the district authorities could not possibly deliver possession of the earlier acquired lands back to the petitioners. Learned counsel concedes that the stay as imposed by the order of the Supreme Court vide order dated 19.09.2008 in Civil Appeal No. 10175 - 10176 of 2008, does not continue to operate since after the date of decision taken on the issue by the Deputy Commissioner, and considering the same, an appropriate order can be passed regarding the petitioners' claim for mutation of their names in revenue records in respect of the lands except the surplus lands.;