( 2026:JHHC:21021-DB ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 44 of 2026 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Health, officiating from his office at ‘Project Bhawan’, P.O and P.S Jaganathpur, Dist-Ranchi. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, officiating from his office at O/o Deputy Commissioner, Collectorate Building, P.O and P.S Deoghar, District- Deoghar. 3. Circle Officer, Deoghar, officiating from his office at Collectorate Building, P.O and P.S Deoghar, District- Deoghar. …. … Appellants Versus Baba Baidyanath Medical Trust, having its principal office at DD-5, Dhawandeep Building, Jantar Matar Road, P.O GPO, P.S Jantar Mantar, Dist- New Delhi-110001 through its authorized representative Pankaj Kumar S/o Shankar Prasad Keshri, aged about 37 years R/o Lawalong, Bazar Tand, P.O and P.S Lawalong, District-Deoghar. …. … Respondent With L.P.A. No. 229 of 2026 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Health, officiating from his office at ‘Project Bhawan’, P.O and P.S Jaganathpur, Dist-Ranchi. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, officiating from his office at O/o Deputy Commissioner, Collectorate Building, P.O and P.S Deoghar, District- Deoghar. 3. Circle Officer, Deoghar, officiating from his office at Collectorate Building, P.O and P.S Deoghar, District- Deoghar. …. … Appellants Versus Baba Baidyanath Medical Trust, having its principal office at DD-5, Dhawandeep Building, Jantar Matar Road, P.O GPO, P.S Jantar Mantar, Dist- New Delhi-110001 through its authorized representative Pankaj Kumar S/o Shankar Prasad Keshri, aged about 37 years R/o Lawalong, Bazar Tand, P.O and P.S Lawalong, District-Deoghar. …. … Respondent With L.P.A. No. 242 of 2026 M/s Paritran Medical College & Hospital through its Secretary, Shivdutt Sharma, aged about 57 years, son of Sri Jwala Prasad Singh (Trustee), resident of Amardham Lane, Castair Town, Bawan Bigha, P.O. & P.S.- Deoghar, District- Deoghar, Jharkhand. ... ... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Health, officiating from his office at ‘Project Bhawan’, P.O and P.S Jaganathpur, Dist-Ranchi. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, officiating from his office at O/o Deputy Commissioner, Collectorate Building, P.O and P.S Deoghar, District- Deoghar. ( 2026:JHHC:21021-DB ) 2 3. Circle Officer, Deoghar, officiating from his office at Collectorate Building, P.O and P.S Deoghar, District- Deoghar. 4. Baba Baidyanath Medical Trust, having its principal office at DD-5, Dhawandeep Building, Jantar Matar Road, P.O GPO, P.S Jantar Mantar, Dist-New Delhi-110001 through its authorized representative Pankaj Kumar, son of Shankar Prasad Keshri, aged about 37 years R/o Lawalong, Bazar Tand, P.O and P.S Lawalong, District-Deoghar. …. … Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ------ L.P.A.Nos. 44 & 229 of 2026 For the Appellants : Mr Manoj Kumar, GA-III Mr Aditya Raman, AC to GA-III For the Respondent : Mr Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr Parth Jalan, Advocate Ms Shivani Jaluka, Advocate Mr Akash Ajit Kumar, Advocate L.P.A.No. 242 of 2026 For the Appellant : Mr Atanu Banerjee, Advocate Mr Aditya Banerjee, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 3 : Ms Rishi Bharti, AC to AAG-III For the Resp. No. 4 : Mr Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr Parth Jalan, Advocate Ms Shivani Jaluka, Advocate Mr Akash Ajit Kumar, Advocate ----- 11 /Dated: 15.07.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. These three Letters Patent Appeals were joined together because they concern the same property and the issues largely overlap. Accordingly, the learned Counsel for the parties agreed that it would be appropriate to dispose of all these appeals by a common judgment and order. 3. L.P.A. Nos. 44 of 2026 and 242 of 2026 challenge the learned Single Judge’s judgment and order dated 03.11.2025 disposing of W.P.(C) No. 668 of 2025. 4. W.P.(C) No. 668 of 2025 was instituted by Baba Baidyanath Medical Trust (for short ‘BBMT’) to challenge the orders dated 04.12.2025 and ( 2026:JHHC:21021-DB ) 3 07.01.2025, under which the Circle Officer, Deoghar, rejected its application for mutation. 5. W.P.(C) No. 668 of 2025 was allowed by the learned Single Judge’s impugned order dated 03.11.2025. The two orders dated 04.12.2025 and 07.01.2025 were quashed and set aside, and the Circle Officer, Deoghar, was directed to complete the mutation process by making the necessary entry in Register-II and to issue revenue rent receipts in favour of BBMT within four weeks of receipt or production of a copy of this order. 6. Surprisingly, the State has appealed the impugned order dated 03.11.2025, which concerns the mutation and the recording of BBMT’s name in the revenue records in place of Paritran Medical College and Hospital (for short ‘PMCH’), the appellant in L.P.A. No. 242 of 2026. Since PMCH was not impleaded as a respondent in W.P.(C) No. 668 of 2025, it has, after obtaining leave of this Court, instituted L.P.A. No. 242 of 2026 to challenge the very same impugned order dated 03.11.2025 disposing of W.P.(C) No. 668 of 2025. 7. The BBMT, which proposes to establish a Medical College on the property that is the subject of these appeals, had applied for an essentiality certificate to the State Government because such a certificate is one of the requirements for approval by the N.M.C. to establish and operate a Medical College. This application was not being considered and disposed of by the State Government, thereby forcing the BBMT to institute W.P.(C) No. 662 of 2025. 8. By a separate order also dated 03.11.2025, the learned Single Judge allowed W.P. (C) No. 662 of 2025 and directed the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, to complete the land verification process and issue an essentiality ( 2026:JHHC:21021-DB ) 4 certificate to BBMT within four weeks thereafter. The State, aggrieved by this order, has instituted L.P.A. No. 229 of 2026. 9. Mr Manoj Kumar, learned G.A.-III for the State, which is the appellant in L.P.A. No. 44 of 2026 and L.P.A. No. 229 of 2026, submitted that BBMT’s W.P.(C) No. 668 of 2025 should not have been entertained by the learned Single Judge because BBMT had an alternate and efficacious remedy of an appeal under the Bihar Tenant’s Holding (Maintenance of Record) Act, 1973. 10. Mr Manoj Kumar further submitted that the land in question was Mul Raiyati land and therefore, no mutation could be carried out in respect of such land without due permission from the competent authority, i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar. He also submitted that the transfer of such land, though involuntarily, from PMCH to BBMT through a public auction cannot defeat the provisions of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949 and the reliance on the Santhal Pargana Manual, 2011 was incorrect. He submitted that such auction proceeding, therefore, cannot vest any absolute title in BBMT. 11. Mr Manoj Kumar further submitted that there was no evidence about the change of user of the land and the findings to that effect in the impugned order warrant interference. He also argued that since the sale letter was not registered under Section 89 of the Registration Act, such sale letter could never have been relied upon by the BBMT to insist upon mutation in their favour. 12. Mr Manoj Kumar submitted that since all these crucial aspects have not been considered by the learned Single Judge or, in any event, not being correctly considered by the learned Single Judge, the impugned order dated 03.11.2025 allowing W.P.(C) No. 668 of 2025 warrants interference. ( 2026:JHHC:21021-DB ) 5 13. Mr Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the PMCH, which is the appellant in L.P.A. No. 242 of 2026, while adopting the submissions of Mr Manoj Kumar in their entirety, submitted that the so-called sale in favour of BBMT is still not finalised, because PMCH’s Chamber Appeal is still pending. He submitted that the auction sale was in fact challenged by PMCH before this Court, but the petition was not entertained for want of alternate remedy. He submitted that PMCH did avail of such alternate remedy. However, the registration of PMCH’s appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) was incorrectly refused by its Registrar. He submitted that, against the refusal of registration, PMCH has filed a Chamber Appeal, which to date has not been disposed of. He submitted that in such circumstances, BBMT cannot claim any rights based on the auction sale and insist upon mutation. 14. Mr Banerjee submitted that in any event, there are issues of land being Mul Raiyati and there was no permission from the Competent Authority for the transfer of such land. He further submitted that PMCH was a necessary party to W.P.(C) No. 668 of 2025 and in its absence, the impugned order could not have been made. 15. For all the above reasons, Mr Banerjee submitted that the impugned order dated 03.11.2025 disposing of W.P.(C) No. 668 of 2025 deserves to be interfered with in L.P.A. Nos. 44 of 2026 and 242 of 2026. 16. Mr Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for BBMT, first questioned the propriety of the State Government challenging orders in a matter of mutation. Secondly, he submitted that his arguments about the land being Mul Raiyati or the absence of prior permission from the Competent Officers were not the grounds in the orders dated 04.12.2025 and 07.01.2025, ( 2026:JHHC:21021-DB ) 6 by which the mutation applications were rejected. He submitted that the authorities cannot add fresh grounds when the original order is challenged. He relied upon the principle in Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405. 17. Mr Ajit Kumar submitted that the PMCH had mortgaged the property in question to a bank to secure a loan. After it defaulted, the bank obtained a decree for approximately Rs. 1.41 crores. Since no payments were made, the bank auctioned the property. Almost nine attempts were made, all of which failed. On the 10th attempt, BBMT purchased the property for valuable consideration. Mr Kumar submitted that, at the time of the auction, the property was recorded in the revenue records in the name of PMCH. He therefore submitted that it is only proper that the revenue authorities now mutate the property in the name of BBMT. He submitted that several attempts by PMCH to question the auction sale have been made, but without success before this Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, or the DRT. He submitted that, in such circumstances, there is no question of PMCH now raising such objections in mutation proceedings or before this Court. 18. Mr Ajit Kumar submitted that the frivolous objections regarding the land being Mul Raiyati or the absence of permission from the Competent Authorities for transfer applied equally at the stage when mutations were affected in favour of PMCH. He submitted that, at the very least, PMCH should now cease raising objections before this Court or the revenue authorities. He further submitted that, in any event, such permissions had been obtained and that the State had also issued an essentiality certificate to PMCH in the past to establish a medical college on the same land. ( 2026:JHHC:21021-DB ) 7 19. Mr Ajit Kumar submitted that the State, challenging orders in a case of mutation, or the borrower, despite failing to succeed in challenges to the auction sale, objecting to mutation favouring BBMT, amounts to an abuse of the judicial process and, therefore, these L.P.As. must be dismissed with exemplary costs. 20. Insofar as, L.P.A. No. 229 of 2026 is concerned, Mr Manoj Kumar, learned GA-III submitted that until the issue of title verification was concluded, there was no question of issuing any writ of mandamus to the State to grant the essentiality certificate. He submitted that there was a serious issue about BBMT’s title, as was pointed out in the arguments concerning L.P.A. No. 44 of 2026. 21. Without prejudice, Mr Manoj Kumar submitted that the learned Single Judge had exceeded jurisdiction in issuing the mandamus for grant of the essentiality certificate because admittedly, BBMT’s application for issue of essentiality certificate had never been rejected by the State Government and it was BBMT’s case that the same was kept pending for an unreasonable length of time. He submitted without prejudice that in such circumstances, the maximum relief that could have been granted to BBMT was a direction to the State to consider and dispose of BBMT’s application for essentiality certificate within some reasonable period in accordance with law. 22. Mr Ajit Kumar, learned senior advocate for the BBMT, submitted that the arguments regarding title verification are frivolous and that, for almost eleven months, no decision was taken on BBMT’s application for an essentiality certificate. He reiterated that BBMT is an auction purchaser and that the State cannot, for frivolous reasons, reject mutation and then urge a defect in BBMT’s title as a ground for rejecting the essentiality certificate. He ( 2026:JHHC:21021-DB ) 8 further submitted that the State had also issued an essentiality certificate to PMCH in the past to establish a medical college on the same land. Accordingly, he submitted that there was no error if a direction was issued by the learned Single Judge in its order dated 03.11.2025 disposing of W.P.(C) No. 662 of 2025. 23. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 24. In this case, there is no dispute that PMCH had acquired the ownership of the land which is the subject matter of these appeals and mortgaged the same in favour of the bank for securing a loan of Rs. 93.00 crore or above. There is also no dispute that the PMCH defaulted in the payment of such loan, prompting the bank to file O.A. No. 154 of 2013 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). This was allowed, and the certificate of recovery for an amount of Rs. 141.00 crores (approximately) was issued for recovery of the said amount from the PMCH. 25. The record shows that a one-off settlement proposal was offered to PMCH, but PMCH failed to avail itself of it. The record further shows that PMCH was unable to deposit even the upfront payment of Rs. 5.00 crores to avail itself of the OTS proposal. 26. The record also shows that, in all, no less than 10 public auctions were held for the enforcement of the recovery certificate of Rs. 141.00 crores against PMCH. Nine auctions failed. However, in the 10th auction held on 20th December, 2023, BBMT was declared as the successful bidder. 27. To stall the sale, PMCH instituted W.P(C) No. 165 of 2024 before this Court on 12.01.2024. This petition challenged the order by which PMCH’s offer to make upfront payment of Rs. 6.00 crore and further settle the liability by paying Rs. 60.00 crores were rejected. The Recovery Officer noted that ( 2026:JHHC:21021-DB ) 9 whenever the property was auctioned, PMCH came up with a fresh proposal for settlement, but never actually settled the matter. 28. During the pendency of W.P (C) No. 165 of 2024, a certificate of sale was issued in favour of BBMT. Possession of the property was also handed over to BBMT. W.P (C) No. 165 of 2024 was dismissed on the ground that PMCH had an alternate and efficacious remedy before the DRT. 29. PMCH challenged the dismissal of W.P (C) No. 165 of 2024 by instituting L.P.A No. 167 of 2024. Even this was dismissed on 08.08.2024. 30. Undeterred, PMCH instituted Special Leave Petition (Diary) No. 49186 of 2024 challenging the order dated 08.08.2024 dismissing LPA No. 167 of 2024. On 10.12.2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed this SLP. 31. After all this, PMCH approached the DRT by instituting an appeal bearing No. E.D.R.T No. 87 of 2025. However, PMCH failed to make the required pre-deposit, and therefore the registration of this appeal was refused on 30.06.2025. PMCH now claims to have filed a Chamber Appeal No. 02 of 2025 against this appeal, which is stated to be pending. 32. From the above narration of events, it is apparent that, at least as of now, the sale certificate dated 23.01.2024 issued in favour of the BBMT has attained finality, as PMCH’s challenges before various fora to date have not met with any significant success. 33. PMCH’s L.P.A. No. 242 of 2026 has therefore to be construed in the background of the above facts which unmistakably show that PMCH is making all out efforts to see that the property it had mortgaged cannot be enjoyed by the subsequent purchaser at a public auction. This L.P.A is also an attempt in the same direction. ( 2026:JHHC:21021-DB ) 10 34. It is inexplicable how the PMCH is today raising the issue of the property being Mul Raiyati and that permissions are required for its transfer when PMCH obtained a mutation in its favour despite the existence of such so-called objection. PMCH transferred the property by way of mortgage in favour of the bank and at that time, PMCH had no qualms about alleged compliance with the provisions of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949 or any such objections. 35. Mr Ajit Kumar points out that at that stage, PMCH relied upon the specific permission / NOC granted by the competent authorities of the State Government and therefore, now, it is too late for either the State Government or PMCH to raise such pleas and resist mutation in favour of BBMT. 36. The arguments about want of registration, the sale not having attained finality for the alleged breach of procedures during the auction process, the impact of tenancy legislations, etc. are precisely the grounds that were urged by BBMT before this Court and now in the appeal before the DRT. As noted above, the proceedings before this Court were dismissed due to non- exhaustion of alternate remedies, and the appeal before the DRT was not even registered for failure to comply with the precondition of deposit. The pendency of a chamber appeal against registration cannot be stretched too far to claim that the sale to BBMT has not attained finality thus far. The PMCH, it appears, wants to keep the pot boiling, as a springboard to object to the BBMT from enjoying the property it has acquired at a public auction. 37. Therefore, based on the above objections, BBMT’s application for mutation could not have been rejected. To be fair, the impugned orders rejecting the BBMT’s mutation application (which BBMT challenged by filing W.P (C) No. 668 of 2025) did not refer to such grounds. The State, when ( 2026:JHHC:21021-DB ) 11 defending those orders, and the PMCH, when assailing such orders, have now raised all such grounds. 38. Therefore, the learned Single Judge, in the impugned order dated 03.11.2025, has correctly invoked the principle in Mohinder Singh Gill (Supra) which states that whenever a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reason so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of an affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to the Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought about. 39. The State’s argument about an alternative remedy also does not merit much credence in the gross facts of the present case. Firstly, the rule that an alternative remedy must be exhausted is only a self-imposed restriction on the exercise of powers by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Secondly, in the facts of the present case, where the application for mutation was rejected on ex facie irrelevant grounds and relevant grounds, such as the auction sale having attained finality, were sought to be completely ignored, we cannot fault the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge in entertaining W.P(C) No. 668 of 2025 rather than relegating BBMT to the alternative remedy of appeal. 40. In this case, there was never any dispute that the land in question was mutated in favour of PMCH. There is also no dispute that PMCH mortgaged the land to the bank as a security for repayment of the loan. PMCH defaulted in payment of this loan and therefore, the bank, after following all the due procedures, sold this property through a public auction. BBMT was declared as a successful auction purchaser. ( 2026:JHHC:21021-DB ) 12 41. Considering the above undisputed facts, the limited jurisdiction conferred on the revenue authorities, and the fact that revenue entries are mainly for fiscal purposes, the authorities could not have rejected BBMT’s application for mutation. The revenue authority ignored the permissions granted for transfer of the same land earlier and that a mutation was carried out without raising all such objections in favour of PMCH. The record shows that the PMCH was bent on frustrating the sale by auction and was creating repeated hurdles to the BBMT's enjoyment of the property, but it is surprising that the State should also join the BBMT in this misadventure. 42. The Learned Single Judge has relied on the decision in Sahid Anwar versus the State of Jharkhand and others in W.P (C) No. 1378 of 2016, in which this Court has held as follows: “8. It is an admitted position that though the land in question was originally recorded as ‘Gair Mazarua Khas’ in the Revisional Survey Records of Right and the Jamabandi in respect of the said land had been running in the name of Mehboob Ali and the vendor of the petitioner, namely, Gulam Rasool. On the basis of the said Jamabandi, the respondents all along accepted the rent and recognized the predecessors-in- interest of the petitioner as raiyats in respect of the said land since long. The petitioner is a purchaser of the said land. After purchasing the said land, he applied for mutation in his favour before the Circle Officer, Kasmar, Bokaro (the respondent No.6), however, the same was kept pending since 2013. Though the said land is recorded as ‘Gair Mazarua Khas’ in the Revisional Survey Records of Right, the State had recognized ( 2026:JHHC:21021-DB ) 13 the tenancy right of the processors-in-interest of the petitioner by accepting the rent for last several decades. Their names had been running in the Tenant’s Ledger/Register II maintained in the Circle Office since long without objection from any quarter. The respondent No.6 is not the authority to decide the right, title and interest of any person over the land while deciding the mutation case or granting the rent receipt. The respondents have not disputed that the petitioner is not in possession of the said land. Merely because the land was recorded as ‘Gair Mazarua Khas’ in the Revisional Survey Records of Right does not permit the Circle Officer to deny the mutation.” 43. Further, the learned Single Judge has also relied upon the decision in the case of Anil Kumar Bajaj versus State of Jharkhand and others [2024 SCC Online Jharkhand 4097], where this Court has held that the mutation is not a judicial or quasi-judicial exercise, but an administrative exercise. The purpose of mutation is simply to ascertain who is to pay rent to the public exchequer and such entries are relevant for fiscal purposes. 44. Accordingly, we find no merit whatsoever in LPA No. 44 of 2026 instituted by the State Government and LPA No. 242 of 2026 instituted by PMCH challenging the learned Single Judge’s order dated 03.11.2025 disposing of W.P (C) No. 668 of 2025. Such appeals are liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. 45. Insofar as, the LPA No. 229 of 2026 is concerned, we note that BBMT’s application seeking an essentiality certificate was made on 10th of December, 2024. For a considerable period, or rather, for an unreasonable period, since ( 2026:JHHC:21021-DB ) 14 no decision was taken on such application, BBMT was forced to institute W.P(C) No. 662 of 2025. 46. In W.P(C) No. 662 of 2025, learned Government Advocate-III appearing on behalf of the State raised strong objection to the prayers made in the said writ petition by submitting that the application made by BBMT for grant of essentiality certificate was ‘under consideration’. 47. The learned Government Advocate-III relied on the counter affidavit filed on 10.10.2025 and submitted that the State had almost completed all formalities for grant of essentiality certificate, but due to want of proper verification of the title of the land, no decision could be taken on the issue of essentiality certificate. 48. On behalf of the State Government, several decisions were cited in support of the proposition that grant of essentiality certificate is not a Ministerial act but is a quasi-judicial function and therefore, the authority is bound to take a reasoned decision before granting essentiality certificate. 49. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 03.11.2025, at paragraph 13, noted that the short issue involved in the instant writ petition was as to whether the respondent authority was justified in keeping the application filed by the petitioner (BBMT) for grant of essentiality certificate pending and then urging the ground in the counter affidavit that the land verification is required to be carried out before such certificate is issued. 50. Learned Single Judge agreed with the State’s contention that the grant of essentiality certificate was not a simple Ministerial process. However, after agreeing with this, the learned Single Judge rightly noted that the authority cannot keep the application for grant of essentiality certificate pending for an unreasonable length of time. ( 2026:JHHC:21021-DB ) 15 51. There is no reason for us to take any different view on the proposition that an application for essentiality certificate by any party must be disposed of within a reasonable time. We note that starting a medical college involves a tedious process. Timelines have to be adhered to. Therefore, the authorities are expected to dispose of the application seeking an essentiality certificate within a reasonable period. No doubt, what constitutes a reasonable period would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. 52. The absence of a statutory time limit for disposing of applications for essentiality certificates does not authorise the Authorities to keep such applications pending for an unreasonable period. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge would have been justified in issuing a mandamus directing the Deputy Commissioner, who is reported to be an appropriate authority, to complete the land verification and then dispose of the BBMT’s application for an essentiality certificate in accordance with law and on its own merits. 53. However, it is equally well settled that unless there are exceptional circumstances, a writ of mandamus is never issued to direct the authorities to act or exercise their discretion in a particular manner. Therefore, a further direction that the essentiality certificate must be granted in favour of BBMT within four weeks appears to us to be vulnerable. 54. Admittedly, BBMT’s application for an essentiality certificate was pending only at the stage when BBMT instituted W.P (C) No. 662 of 2025. At that stage, and even at the stage of disposal of the said writ petition, this Court did not have the benefit of any reasons, if any, for the refusal of the essentiality certificate. W.P (C) No. 662 of 2025 was not a petition challenging any order refusing the essentiality certificate. It was essentially a ( 2026:JHHC:21021-DB ) 16 petition complaining of inordinate and unreasonable delay in deciding BBMT’s application for an essentiality certificate. 55. At such a stage therefore, a mandamus to issue the essentiality certificate was not warranted. The mandamus could have been to complete the title verification process and dispose of the application seeking an essentiality certificate in accordance with the law within a time-bound period. 56. Therefore, we modify the impugned order dated 03.11.2025 in W.P(C) No. 662 of 2025 by deleting the direction that the essentiality certificate must be granted in favour of the petitioner within four weeks of completion of the land verification process, and substituting it with a direction that the Deputy Commissioner must complete the land verification process within four weeks from today, and that the competent authority must then dispose of BBMT’s application for an essentiality certificate in accordance with law and on its own merits within six weeks thereafter. 57. However, given the background of these matters and the State’s rather surprising stance in the mutation proceedings, we clarify that the Deputy Commissioner, when deciding the issue of land verification, must bear in mind that he is not an adjudicatory authority like a Civil Court. All the circumstances referred to in the impugned order dated 03.11.2025, as also in this order, must be considered by the Deputy Commissioner. 58. The Deputy Commissioner must be alive to the fact that PMCH was the owner of the property, and it is in the name of PMCH that this land has been mutated. The competent authority must also keep in mind that an essentiality certificate had also been issued in favour of PMCH. Now, BBMT is the successful auction purchaser in respect of the very land, and, at least till date, no Court or Tribunal has set aside the sale letter issued in favour of BBMT. ( 2026:JHHC:21021-DB ) 17 59. In short, the modification of the learned Single Judge’s impugned order to the extent indicated in paragraph 56 above, must not be construed as a license to ignore relevant facts and circumstances or to rely on any irrelevancies. 60. Accordingly, LPA Nos. 44 of 2026 and 242 of 2026 are hereby dismissed, and LPA No. 229 of 2026 is partly allowed to the above extent. No costs. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) July 15, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. NAFR Uploaded on 18.07.2026