2025:JHHC:15427 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.2270 of 2014 ------ M/s Indian Colour Sheets Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Morabadi Maindan (North), P.S. Bariatu, P.O. Ranchi University, District Ranchi through its Director-Sri Ram Swarup Rungta, S/o Late Ram Kumar Rungta, R/o Pushpanjali, Bariatu Road, Bariatu, P.S. Lalpur, P.O. Ranchi University, District- Ranchi 834008. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. 2.The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. 3.The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar, P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Sadar, District- Ranchi. 4.The Circle Officer, Namkom, Ranchi. .... .... .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Mr. Kumar Rahul, Advocate Mr. Harshil Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, G.A. I Mr. Abhinay Kumar, AC to GA.I ------ Order No.19 / Dated : 12.06.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. Petitioner is in Writ against the rejection of application in Mutation Case No.23(R)/2000-01 and affirmed in appeal and revision. 2. The undisputed facts which emerge from the pleadings of the parties is that out of 25.63 acres of land, an area measuring 19.86 acres of land in Plot No.1661, was settled by the State of Bihar in favour of Sri H.C. Holm, Secretary, Centre Cure Home, Old Commissioner’s Compound, Ranchi by letter no.5359(R) dated 24.07.1959 of the Revenue Department, State of Bihar, issued by the Assistant Secretary to the State of Bihar. Subsequently, an area measuring 4.75 acres of land of Plot No.1656 was also settled with the said Sri H.C. Holm by letter dated 08.08.1972 signed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ranchi, and rent was fixed in respect of the said area in Rent Fixation Case No.59(RA)(ii)/1971-72. 3. Sri H.C. Holm was in peaceful possession of the land, who died in the year 1977 and on this, his son Sri Ranjeet Kumar Holm inherited the property. His name was duly mutated; rent was paid to the State of Bihar 2025:JHHC:15427 2 continuously and rent receipt was issued. 4. Sri Ranjeet Kumar Holm sold an area of 7 acres of Plot No.1661 to Sri S.C. Bagchi by registered deed of sale dated 21.01.1980 and his name was also mutated accordingly. Similar sales were made by Ranjeet Kumar Holm for 17.61 acres of land to Smt. Shobha Sharma, Subhash Chandra Sharma, Shanti Kumar Ram Sesaria and Smt. Praveen Ram Sesaria by registered deed of sale dated 20.07.1981 whose names were duly mutated in Miscellaneous Case No.9R-27 of 1985-86. 5. The said purchasers amicably partitioned the property by memorandum of partition and came in separate possession of their shares and each of them sold their shares by registered sale deed dated 29.10.1985 to Mahabir Prasad Rungta, Ram Swaroop Rungta, Ram Chandra Rungta and Sanjay Rungta by different sale of deeds executed on 29.10.1985, 18.09.1985, 10.10.1985 and 18.09.1985. The purchasers’ names were accordingly mutated by separate orders passed in mutation cases. 6. The petitioner- Company purchased 17.51 acres of land by different sale deeds executed by Mahabir Prasad Rungta, Ram Swaroop Rungta, Ram Chandra Rungta and Sanjay Rungta. 7. Circle officer ordered the cancellation of jamabandi running in the name of the Rungtas in Misc. Case No.224 of 1994-95. The said cancellation was ordered after the Petitioner had purchased the land. Order of cancellation was affirmed in appeal by the Additional Collector. 8. Ramchandra Rungta and others being aggrieved by the order, preferred an appeal being Ranchi Rev. Appeal No.400/95 which was allowed and the cancellation of Jamabandi ordered by the Additional Collector was set aside by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi. 9. The application for mutation of the petitioner-Company was rejected by the Circle Officer vide order dated 26.12.2000. The rejection was affirmed in Mutation Appeal No.82R 15-2002-03 and Mutation Revision No.87R15/2011-12. Being aggrieved by the order, instant writ petition has been preferred. 10. It is argued that settlement at no point of time was forfeited or cancelled in terms of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. 2025:JHHC:15427 3 Jamabandi was running in the name of the vendor of the petitioner, and their predecessor-in-interest. It is argued that application for mutation has been cancelled on a bald assertion that possession of the petitioner was suspicious. 11. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned G.A. I for the State has defended the impugned order. It is submitted that in a Mutation proceeding, the only factor which needs to be considered is whether the parties are in possession of the land, in question or not. In the present case, there is concurrent findings of all the three revenue courts that the petitioner was not in possession of the land, in question and on this ground, the petition for mutation was rejected. 12. It is further argued that normally concurrent findings should not be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following authorities:- (2017) 14 SCC 132 and 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 1119. FINDING 13. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, the uncontested facts emerge is that originally the land, in question, was settled in the year 1959 in favour of Sri H.C. Holm, Secretary, Centre Cure Home, Old Commissioner’s Compound, Ranchi, Vide letter no.5359(R) dated 24.07.1959 who came in possession and the land was duly mutated in his name. Subsequent to the said settlement, after the death of Sri H.C. Holm, the land was transferred by his son, Ranjeet Kumar Holm on different dates by registered deeds of sale to different purchasers. Names of the purchaser was mutated and entered into the sherista of Government from time to time and jamabandi was created. 14. The jamabandi so created in favour of the vendor of the present petitioner on the basis of sale-deed was cancelled in Misc. Case No. 224/1994-95. The cancellation was however set aside by Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, in Mutation Revision No. 87 R 15 of 2011-12. 15. Thus, petitioner purchased the land from Ram Chandar Rungta and others in whose names a valid jamabandi was running at the time of the said sale on 19.01.1987. 2025:JHHC:15427 4 16. Law is settled that revenue record has only “fiscal purpose” that is payment of land revenue and paramount consideration while considering an application for mutation is the possession of the land from whom the revenue/ rent is to be received. 17. On the point of possession, there is reference in Mutation Appeal No. 82 R15 of 2002-2003, to a report of the Circle Officer, Namkom in which it was reported that the land was vacant and it was in the possession of petitioner-company. It has also come in the same order in the report of the Mining Officer received vide letter no. 1334 M dated 13.10.2011 that there was no mining lease with respect to this plot of land. 18. These materials are suggestive of the possession of the petitioner- Company over the land, in question which is further buttressed by the jamabandi running in favour of the vendor of the petitioner-company. It has also been noted in the appellate order that order of cancellation of jamabandi against Rungtas was reversed in revision by the order of Deputy Commissioner. 19. At no point has it been contended that the settlement of the land was ever cancelled. The subsequent transfers of the land, each duly followed by mutation, have effectively conferred upon the settlement the character of a perpetual lease. In the absence of cancellation by a competent authority, it must be deemed that the vendor retained valid title to the land, which was subsequently conveyed to the petitioner-company through the sale deed. 20. Possession follows title and in the absence of any other claimant of title or possession over the land in question, the weight of evidence is suggestive of the possession of the Petitioner. Despite this, dismissal of appeal on the basis of a bald report that Petitioner had “no clear possession” over the land does not appear to be justified. What does this express, “no clear possession” imply, is somewhat intriguing. If at all the Petitioners were not found in possession it should have been mentioned with clarity, disclosing the name of the party who was in the possession. There is no other party who has stepped into the claim over the possession of the land, save and except the petitioner-company. 21. In view of the weight of evidence as well as title and possession in favour of the petitioner, there was no justification in dismissing the 2025:JHHC:15427 5 application for mutation. There is also a reference of a vigilance case in the revisional order. 22. Revisional order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Mutation Revision No.87R15 2011-12 is silent on the question of possession. Revision has been rejected on the ground that transfer of the land was for agricultural purpose and the same was defeated in the life time of the settlee. Therefore, the sale of land was illegal and a land scam case was also pending. 23. The ground(s) for rejection in revision exceed the permissible scope of inquiry. As previously stated, the settlement remained legally valid since no competent authority annulled it through due process. Consequently, examining whether the settlement’s objectives were fulfilled falls outside the purview of mutation proceedings and holds no legal relevance to the matter at hand. 24. Similarly, pendency of any vigilance case cannot be a ground for denying the mutation, as has already been held by this Court in 2003 SCC OnLine Jhar 1228 and 2003 SCC OnLine Jhar 647. 25. The order of rejection of mutation is not justified. 26. The Circle Officer, Namkom (Respondent No.4) is directed to pass an appropriate order for mutation of the petitioner-Company within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Writ petition is allowed. Pending I.A, if any, is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Circle Officer, Namkom (Respondent No.4) for its compliance at once. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/Pawan