2025:JHHC:25701 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Civil Writ Jurisdiction) W.P. (C) No.207 of 2024 ---- 1. Jeetendra Kumar, aged about 49 years; 2. Niranjan Kumar, aged about 48 years; 3. Pawan Kumar, aged about 47 years; 4. Ajay Kumar, aged about 45 years; 5. Pradeep Kumar, aged about 43 years; All sons of Late Birendra Prasad, resident of Indrapuri Road No: 2, Ratu Road, P.O.-Hehal, P.S.-Sukhdeo Nagar, District-Ranchi …. …. Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, "Project Bhawan", P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi; 2. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O. GPO, Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi; 3. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ranchi, P.O.-GPO, Ranchi, P.S.- Kotwali, District-Ranchi; 4. Circle Officer, Kanke Anchal, P.O. & P.S.-Kanke, District-Ranchi; …. …. Respondent(s) ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, G.A.-I Mr. Chandan Tiwari, A.C. to G.A.-I ---- 07/Dated: 27th August, 2025 1. Heard the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order for quashing the impugned order dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure-12) passed by respondent No:2 in Mutation Revision No: 29R-15 of 2020-21 after remand by this Hon'ble Court as well as appellate order dated 27.08.2019 (Annexure-5) passed by respondent No:3 in Mutation Appeal No: 408R-15 of 2017-18 as also the Order dated 18.09.2015 (Annexure-3) passed by respondent No: 4 in Mutation Case No: 2816R-27/2015-16 whereby and whereunder the prayer for mutation made on behalf of the Petitioners in respect of land measuring an area of 1.78 Acres, being portion of R.S. Plot Nos. 1548, 1549, 1550, 1551, 1552, 1553, 1554,1563,1564 and 1565 in R.S. Khata Nos: 178 and 179 respectively of Mouza Mesra in the district of Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as "the Lands-in-question") has been rejected illegally, arbitrarily and in colourable exercise of power; AND for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the 2025:JHHC:25701 Page | 2 W.P. (C) No.207 of 2024 respondent No:4 to mutate the name of the Petitioners in respect of the aforesaid land-in-question and within a reasonable period;” 3. The description of the lands of the petitioner are as follows:- “land measuring an area of 1.78 Acres, being portion of R.S. Plot Nos. 1548, 1549, 1550, 1551, 1552, 1553, 1554,1563,1564 and 1565 in R.S. Khata Nos: 178 and 179 respectively of Mouza Mesra in the district of Ranchi.” 4. Referring to the impugned order (Annexure-12) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Mutation Revision No.29R-15 of 2020-21, it has been submitted that the mutation created in the year 1962 has been cancelled. This is beyond the jurisdiction rather there is no law which empowers an authority to cancel a mutation once created. If there is any dispute with regard to the ‘raiyati status’ that is title dispute between the State and the one and other private individual then it can be resolved only and only by the Civil Court and if the State wants to reclaim that land on the basis of title then he has to approach the concerned Civil Court. 5. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that it is a simple refusal to mutate the name. There is no concept of cancellation of mutation. This Court has failed to appreciate the statement given by the State counsel. It appears to be an argument made without applying the factual matrix of the case. The State counsel has merely raised an issue devoid of the merit and the facts and circumstances of the present case which cannot be appreciated as because this cannot be the role of the State counsel. However, this Court refrains from making any further comment regarding the argument advanced by the State counsel. 6. From the impugned order, it is an admitted fact that the raiyati right has been created and raiyati status of the land has been given in the year 1962 itself by mutating the name as recorded in the Register-II. Thereafter, the land has been transacted several times and by transfer mutation, next transferee’s name has been mutated by removing the name of the vendor i.e. ‘Kharij’ and then ‘Dakhil’. 7. For applying the same procedure, the petitioners have approached to the concerned Circle Officer and a Mutation Case No.2816 R-27/2015-16 has been registered on 19.08.2015 in which the petitioners have claimed that they have purchased for the above piece of land from Sulakshna Dassee through registered sale deed dated 20.03.2007 and on the strength of that sale deed the mutation application has been made. The mutation has been refused stating that there is no document suggesting creation of raiyati right. Against the above order, the 2025:JHHC:25701 Page | 3 W.P. (C) No.207 of 2024 petitioners have preferred an appeal being Mutation Appeal No.408 R-15 of 2017- 18 which has been disposed of for want of prosecution on 27.08.2019 by the respondent No.3. and against the same the petitioner has preferred a revision under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 before the respondent no.2 and the said revision was registered as Mutation Revision No.29R-15 of 2020-2021 which has been rejected on 21.10.2022 due to nobody had appeared on behalf the petitioners. 8. Being aggrieved by the revisional order 21.10.2022, a writ petition before this Court being W.P. (C) No.941 of 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, which has been disposed of vide order dated 15.09.2023 (Annexure-10). Paragraph-5 of the said order is relevant which is quoted hereinbelow:- “5. In view of the fact that the petitioners have not been sufficiently heard and by giving a sympathetic consideration to the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the impugned order dated 21.10.2022,passed by the respondent no. 2 in Mutation Revision No. 29R-15 of 2020-21 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 2 to consider afresh the revision application preferred by the petitioners. The respondent no. 2 shall ensure that the proper intimation is given to the petitioners regarding the next date of hearing and if on the next date of hearing, the petitioner(s) do not appear, the respondent no. 2 may proceed in accordance with law. However, if the petitioners are present and the case is argued it is expected that the respondent no. 2 shall conclude the proceedings and pass a final order within a period of two months from the date of the first appearance of the petitioners pursuant to the present order. The writ application is disposed of.” 9. On remand the impugned order has been passed vide order dated 17.10.2023 which has been challenged before this Court. 10. From mere perusal of the order, it appears that the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has refused the mutation only on the ground that earlier mutation has been cancelled. The Deputy Commissioner had dismissed the revision on the strength that there is no document to suggest the creation of raiyati right through due process with regard to the impugned piece of land. 11. It is an admitted position that mutation had been created in the year 1962 and it has been transferred several times and transfer mutation has also been done. The field of mutation is now occupied by the Law known as The Bihar/Jharkhand Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. 12. The relevant Sections-12 and 14 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 are quoted hereinbelow:- 2025:JHHC:25701 Page | 4 W.P. (C) No.207 of 2024 “12. Persons claiming interest by partition effected either privately or through Court or intestate or testamentary succession, transfer, exchange, agreement, settlement, lease, mortgage, gift or by any other means to file application before the Anchal Adhikari.- After the commencement of this Act in any area every person having interest in a holding or part thereof in that area by partition effected either privately or through Court, or intestate or testamentary succession, transfer, exchange agreement, settlement, lease, mortgage, gift or by any other means, shall within three months or accrual of such interest file application in the prescribed form before the Anchal Adhikari of the area in whose jurisdiction that land is situated for mutation of his name in respect of that holding or part thereof in the continuous khatian and the tenant's ledger register and on receipt of such application, the Anchal Adhikari shall grant a receipt to such person.] 14. Requisition and disposal of mutation case.—(1) On receipt of notice under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 or an application under Sections 11 and 12 or a report under Section 13, the Anchal Adhikari shall start a mutation proceeding and after entering it in the mutation case register which shall be maintained in the prescribed form shall cause such enquiry to be made as may be deemed necessary. (2) The Anchal Adhikari shall issue a general notice and also give notice to the parties concerned to file objection, if any, within fifteen days of the issue of the notice. On receipt of objection, if any, the Anchal Adhikari shall give reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to adduce evidence, if any, and of being heard and dispose of the objection and pass such orders as may be deemed necessary. (3) In cases in which no objections are received the Anchal Adhikari shall dispose them of within one month of the date of expiry of filing objection and in cases in which objections are received, the Anchal Adhikari shall dispose them of in not more than three months from the date of expiry of the period of filing objections.” 13. In the case of transfer of land by a registered document, the authorities are supposed to transfer the mutation also if the vendor has the mutation in the Register-II. There is no such power has been assigned to the authorities to decide the title of one and another party. Mutation cannot be refused. This power does not confer the authorities under the Mutation Act. 14. In the present case, the mutation has been done in the year 1962 and it continued till the vendor of the present petitioner. The name of the vendor is 2025:JHHC:25701 Page | 5 W.P. (C) No.207 of 2024 mutated and has been recorded in the Register-II. Now, it is a simplicitor case of transfer of mutation and this cannot be refused. 15. In fact, order of the authorities clearly indicates that they have decided title and have cancelled the mutation created in the year 1962 by stating that the impugned land does not bears the status of ‘raiyati’ land. Thus, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the State is fallacious and misleading one. 16. In view of above discussion of the factual matrix and law, impugned order dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure-12) passed by respondent No:2 in Mutation Revision No: 29R-15 of 2020-21 after remand by this Hon'ble Court as well as appellate order dated 27.08.2019 (Annexure-5) passed by respondent No:3 in Mutation Appeal No: 408R-15 of 2017-18 as also the Order dated 18.09.2015 (Annexure-3) passed by respondent No: 4 in Mutation Case No: 2816R-27/2015-16, are hereby quashed and set aside and the concerned Circle Officer is directed to transfer the mutation by mutating the name of these petitioners in the concerned Register within three months from the date of receipt/production of the order of this Court. 17. With above observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Amar/- Uploaded