IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.6467 of 2024 ----- Raj Kishor Kumar, S/o Pannu Ram Mahto, R/o village-Datiya, P.O. & P.S.-Khunti, District-Khunti, Jharkhand .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Khunti, Jharkhand. 3. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Khunti, Jharkhand. 4. Circle Officer, Khunti, Jharkhand. 5. Amit Kumar Jaiswal, S/o Surendra Prasad Bhagat, R/o Torpa Road, Bhagat Singh Chowk, P.O. & P.S.-Khunti, Jharkhand. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, AC to AAG-V ----- Order No.02 Date: 15.01.2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 27th September, 2024 passed by the Circle Officer, Khunti- respondent no.4 in Mutation Case No.514 R27/2024-25, whereby the application filed by the respondent no.5 seeking mutation of the land appertaining to Khata No.37, Plot Nos.37, 277 & 263 measuring area of 52 decimals, 5 decimals & 7 decimals respectively, Mouza-Datiya, District-Khunti has been allowed ignoring the fact that earlier vide order dated 30th October, 2021 passed in Mutation Case No.334 R 27/2021-22 similar application filed by one of the co-purchasers of the said land was rejected by the respondent no.4. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 27th September, 2024 passed by the respondent no.4 is completely without jurisdiction as the mutation application filed by one of the co-purchasers of the said land was already rejected by the respondent no.4 in Mutation Case No.334 R 27/2021-22. 3. Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-V, appearing on behalf of the state-respondents, submits that the petitioner can agitate the present issue by preferring the statutory appeal under Section 15 of Bihar (now Jharkhand) Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter be referred as ‘the Act, 1973’). Hence, the present writ petition may not be entertained. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that the petitioner has the efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring an appeal before the respondent no.3 against the order dated 27th September, 2024 passed by the respondent no.4 in Mutation Case No.514 R 27/2024-25, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition at this stage. 5. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take statutory recourse of preferring appeal under Section 15 of the Act, 1973 before the respondent no.3. On preferring such an appeal, the respondent no.3 shall take up the same and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondent no.5 as well as other concerned person(s), is so required, shall take an appropriate decision in accordance with law expeditiously. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Arpit/ -2- W.P. (C) No.6467 of 2024