2026:JHHC:17642 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) NO. 6299 OF 2022 ….. Afan Khan, aged about 52 years, Son of Late Rahman Khan, resident of village Kindirkela, P.O. and P.S. Basia, District-Gumla (Jharkhand). ….Petitioner -versus- 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Secretary, Revenue, Land Reforms and Registration Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, P.O., P.S. and District-Gumla. 4. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Gumla, P.O., P.S. and District- Gumla. 5. Circle Officer, Basia, P.O. and P.S. Basia, District-Gumla. …Respondents CORUM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Adv For the Respondents : Mr. Ashutosh Anand (AAG-III) Mr. S.K.Sinha, Adv ….. CAV On: 02/4/2026 Pronounced on:15/06/2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief: For issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 10.5.2019, passed by the Circle Officer, Basia, in Mutation Case No. 5R27/2018-19, contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition, by which the Respondent No. 5 has rejected the petition filed by the Petitioner for mutation of name with respect to the land measuring an area of 1.54 acres pertaining to RS Plot No. 1291 of Khata No. 4 situated at Mouza Kaliga, PO, PS and District Gumla and for quashing the order dated 14.6.2022 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Gumla, in Mutation Appeal No. 7 of 2019-20, (Annexure-3) dismissing the appeal filed by the Petitioner on absolutely irrelevant consideration of materials on the record and for quashing the order dated 05.09.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, in Mutation Revision Case No. 36 of 2022-23 (Annexure-4), dismissing the revision filed by the 2026:JHHC:17642 2 Petitioner contrary to the provisions of the Bihar Tenant Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, and the rules framed thereunder; and for such other reliefs to which the Petitioner is entitled.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the land forming the subject matter of the instant petition was purchased for valuable consideration by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 8.9.2012 from Dr. Raghawendra Narayan Sharma and others. He submits that upon execution of the sale deed, the Petitioner came into possession of the land. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the land in question was Bakast land of the ex-landlord, namely Pandey Maheshwarnath Roy. The ex-landlord sold the land to one Deokinandan Sharma by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 7.3.1944. He submits that the land was mutated in the name of Deokinandan Sharma and revenue rent receipts were issued in his name. The legal heirs of Deokinandan Sharma sold the land to the Petitioner by virtue of the above- mentioned sale deed. 5. Learned counsel further submits that after purchasing the land, the Petitioner filed an application before Respondent No. 5, praying that the land be mutated in his name. The said case was registered as mutation case No. 5R27 of 2018-19. However, as per the Petitioner, Respondent No. 5, without making any inquiry with respect to the possession and claim of the Petitioner, rejected the application on the ground of the pendency of a writ petition, being WP(PIL) No. 4024 of 2017, on 10.5.2019. He submits that the finding returned by 2026:JHHC:17642 3 Respondent No. 5 is perverse, as the said public interest litigation [WP(PIL) No. 4024 of 2017] had already been dismissed on 28.9.2018 with a cost of ₹10,000/- (INR Ten Thousand Only). 6. Learned counsel further submits that he preferred an appeal against the above order, which was registered as Mutation Appeal No. 7 of 2019-20. Respondent No. 4 dismissed the appeal without proper consideration on 14.6.2022. Thereafter, the Petitioner chose to file a revision registered as mutation revision case No. 36 of 2022- 23 before Respondent No. 3. The Ld. counsel contends that Respondent No. 3, without proper consideration, dismissed the said revision vide order dated 5.9.2022. 7. On the basis of the above said facts, the Petitioner submits that he has acquired a right over the property by virtue of a registered document and is in possession of the same. As per the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, the impugned orders will show that the application of the Petitioner for mutation has been rejected on the ground that the entry in Register-II is suspicious. He submits that mutation cannot be rejected on such frivolous grounds, and as such, the instant writ petition ought to be allowed. The Petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Chattar Pal v. Mandir Thakur ji (2003 2 PLJ 191) to contend that the mutating authority is required to find out who is in lawful possession of the property on the date of consideration of the application and must adjudicate the application accordingly. If the applicant is found to be in lawful possession, then in such a case, mutation is to be allowed. 2026:JHHC:17642 4 8. Per contra, the Ld. counsel appearing for the Respondent- State has urged that the instant writ petition ought to be dismissed in limine, as the same involves adjudication of disputed questions of fact. In paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent-State, the claim of the Petitioner, with respect to his possession over the land has been disputed. It is further submitted that the impugned orders have been passed after ample consideration of both the fact and the law. 9. The Ld. counsel representing the Respondent-State further submits that Respondent No. 3, prior to passing the order dated 5.9.2022, had called for an inquiry report from the Additional Collector, Gumla. In his report, it is categorically recorded that before vesting of Zamindari, the ex-landlord was dispossessed from the land forming the subject matter of the instant petition, and as such, Form M under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, was not issued in his favour. Further, the Remarks Column of Register II does not contain the signature of the competent authority, and as such, the same is suspicious. 10. Respondents Nos. 6 to 15 were impleaded as intervenor Respondents upon their application, upon an interlocutory application being IA No. 29 of 2024, filed by them. The Ld. Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 6 to 15 claimed that the land forming the subject matter of the instant petition is used by the villagers for more than 100 years for various social and religious purposes, such as stocking their crops, holding melas, etc. They have further 2026:JHHC:17642 5 contended that a school has been running over a portion of the land since 1970, and another portion is also used as a playground. 11. Respondents No. 6 to 15 have also filed a counter-affidavit in which strong reliance has been placed on an order passed in a case registered as M. No. 2 of 1980 under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The said order passed on 26.8.1988 shows that the land was being used by the villagers for common purposes. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, the following issue is framed for adjudication of the instant writ petition: - Whether instant writ petition can be entertained and the relief sought by the petitioner be granted ? 13. This Court is of the view that adjudication of the instant petition requires looking into certain factual aspects which are hotly contested by the parties. The Ld. counsel appearing for the Petitioner has claimed to be in possession of the land upon execution of the sale deed dated 8.9.2012. He has claimed that he was put into possession by his predecessors in interest, and since then he has been in peaceful possession of the land. The factual matrix pertaining to the Petitioner's possession has, however, been disputed by the Respondent-State as well as by Respondents Nos 6 to 15. 14. The records suggest that the Petitioner had purchased the property by registered sale deed in the year 2012. However, the application for mutation was filed only in 2018. The Petitioner has 2026:JHHC:17642 6 not explained this delay of six years in applying for mutation. Apart from mere averments in the writ petition (which have been denied), the Petitioner has not brought on record any evidence of the preceding nature which could clear the cloud with respect to his possession over the property. 15. Reference is made to the case of Mahnoor Fatima Imran and Ors v. Visheshwar Infrastructure Private Limited and Ors. (2025 INSC 646), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that in order for a writ petition to be entertainable, clear title and proven physical possession are must. Similarly, in the case of Roshina T v. Abdul Aziz KT and Ors (Civil Appeal No. 11759 of 2018), it has been held that issues pertaining to possession entail adjudicating factual disputes, which require the court to strenuously examine the evidence. 16. Such adjudication can be done by a civil court in a civil suit, but not in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. These judgements are based on the established principle of law that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this court cannot delve into questions of fact which are hotly contested. 18. The judgement relied upon by the Petitioner will not apply to the case at hand, as in the said case the lawful possession over the property in question was established beyond any doubt. 2026:JHHC:17642 7 19. Even otherwise, the orders impugned before this Court seem to have been passed, taking into consideration the entirety of the facts and the title antecedent of the land. The orders passed by Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 4 show consideration of contentions raised by both parties and proper scrutiny of the available records. 20. It is established law, the court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, while undertaking judicial review of a decision, cannot; rather should not, act as a court of appeal. The scope of judicial review is to see whether the decision impugned before it is vitiated by an apparent error of law or, on the face of it, is perverse. Powers of judicial review can be exercised in cases where the decision is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have ever arrived at it. 21. In the case at hand, the Petitioner has failed to make out any such case, and as such, no interference is required. 22. In light of the above, the Petitioner cannot be granted the relief as prayed for. However, the Petitioner shall have liberty to avail appropriate remedy within the legal framework. 23. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending I.A. if any, stands closed. No order as to cost. (Deepak Roshan, J) Dated15 /06/2026 Amardeep/ N.A.F.R Uploaded on 19.06.2026