- (1.) The present petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi dated 26th March, 2008 in Mutation Revision No. 33-R-15/2007-08. By this order, revision application preferred by the present petitioners has been dismissed and thereby the order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector (L.R.D.C.), Sadar, Ranchi dated 27th November, 2007 in Mutation Appeal No. 83-R-15/ 2007-08 has been confirmed. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ranchi has allowed the appeal preferred by respondent nos. 5 to 8 and he has quashed and set aside the order passed by the Circle Officer, Mandar, Ranchi dated 23rd July, 2007 in Mutation Case No. 105-R-27/2007-08. Thus, the present petition has been preferred against the orders passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi in Mutation Revision No. 33-R-15/2007-08 as well as against the order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Ranchi in Mutation Appeal No. 83-R-15/2007-08.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, who has mainly submitted that the order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Ranchi dated 27th November, 2007 deserves to be quashed and set aside likewise the order passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi also deserves to be quashed and set aside mainly for the reason that both the authorities have not properly appreciated the fact that respondent nos. 5 to 8 were not in possession of the property in question and, therefore, their names can not be mutated in the revenue records. It is also vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the partition deed upon which the reliance is placed by respondent nos. 5 to 8 can not be the basis of the mutation entries in favour of respondent nos. 5 to 8 mainly for the reason that the final order has been passed in Partition Suit No. 89/1959-60 has been delivered in the year 1971. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the decisions, which are reported in 1987 PLJR 1037 and in 2000 (4) JLJR 351 and it is submitted that these aspects of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Ranchi as well as by the Additional Collector, Ranchi and, therefore, the orders at Annexure 4 as well as at Annexure 6 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent nos. 5 to 8, who has submitted that no error has been committed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Ranchi in deciding the matter vide order dated 27th November, 2007 in Mutation Appeal No. 83-R- 15/2007-08 as well as by the Additional Collector, Ranchi vide order dated 26th March, 2008 in Mutation Revision No. 33-R-15/2007-08. It is also submitted by learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 to 8 that the Circle Officer, Mandar, Ranchi ought to have allowed the application, preferred by respondent nos. 5 to 8 for mutation of their names in the revenue entries, on the basis of registered partition deed dated 17th April, 1963. It is also vehemently submitted by learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 to 8 that the Circle Officer, Mandar, Ranchi ought to have mutated the names of respondent nos. 5 to 8 because there is a registered partition deed. A revenue officer neither can go after the registered document nor can check the legality and validity of the partition deed. Once there is a registered partition deed, the Circle Officer ought to have mutated the names of respondent nos. 5 to 8 because revenue entries are not the evidence of the title of the property. Mutation of the name is revealing the fact that some persons are claiming right, title or interest upon the property through some document. For exact title or interest, it will be decided by the Civil Courts and, therefore, once there is a registered sale deed or gift deed or mortgage deed or partition deed or similarly situated other documents it is a duty vested in the Circle Officer to give effect to said registered documents, without entering into the legality or validity or correctness of those registered documents. This aspect of the matter was not properly appreciated by the Circle Officer while passing the order dated 23rd July, 2007 in Mutation Case No. 105-R-27/2007- 08 (Annexure 3 to the memo of the present petition) and, therefore, an appeal was preferred by the present respondent nos. 5 to 8 being a Mutation Appeal No. 83-R-15/2007-08 and the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Ranchi has properly appreciated that once there is a registered partition deed, the names of respondent nos. 5 to 8 ought to be recorded in the revenue entries and if anybody challenges the right, title or interest of the parties whose names are entered into the revenue records, the said challenge ought to be made in the Civil Courts, but, never a revenue officer can deny the entries of the names in the revenue records in whose favour there is a registered document. It may be a sale deed or gift deed or mortgage deed or partition deed etc. or the like deeds and, therefore, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Ranchi has rightly mutated the names of respondent nos. 5 to 8 vide order dated 27th November, 2007 by allowing the mutation appeal preferred by respondent nos. 5 to 8 (Annexure 4 to the memo of the present compilation) and against this order, revision application preferred by the present petitioners has been rightly dismissed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi vide order dated 26th March, 2008 (Annexure 6 to the memo of the present compilation). It is also submitted by learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 to 8 that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that unless there is a possession by the party, his name can not be mutated in the revenue entry, this contention is dehors the law and thoroughly baseless. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 to 8 has given an illustration that if Mr. X is an owner of the property and gives rent/lease/mortgage to Mr. Y and the possession is also given to Mr. Y, thereafter, if Mr. X sells the property to Mr. P or if Mr. X gives gifts to Mr. P or if Mr. X gives the property by Will to Mr. P then Mr. P's names can be mutated in the revenue entries, even though Mr. P is not in possession of the property because what is transferred by the original owner to Mr. P is a rented, tenanted or mortgaged property and it is also submitted by counsels for the respondents that this aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Ranchi as well as by the Additional Collector, Ranchi and, therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed with cost.;