2026:JHHC:21604 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.1909 of 2026 Rajendra Prasad, son of Late Suraj Prasad, resident of Hatia Garden, P.O. & P.S. Lohardaga, District Lohardaga. … …… Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, officiating from his Office at Project Bhawan, P.O. Jagannathpur, P.S. Dhurva, District Ranchi. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga, officiating from his office at O/o Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga, P.O. & P.S. Lohardaga, District Lohardaga. 3. Circle Officer, Lohardaga, Officiating from his O/o Circle Officer, Lohardaga, P.O & P.S. Lohardaga, District Lohardaga. 4. Harivansh Choudhary, son of Late Harishankar Choudhary, Resident of Shashtri Chowk, Lohardaga, P.O. & P.S. Lohardaga, District Lohardaga. … …… Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rai, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate …...... 07/21.07.2026: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following relief :- (a) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) for quashing of the order dated 23" of November 2021 passed by the Respondent No. 2 in Mutation Revision Case No. 7 of 2021-22 (Annexure- 13), whereby and whereunder the Respondent No. 2 allowed the Revision filed by the Respondent No. 4 and set aside the order dated 9th of February 2021 passed in Case No. 4 of 2020-21, without taking into account the surrounding facts and circumstances. (b) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) for quashing of the order dated 10th of September 2012 passed by the Respondent No. 3 in Mutation Case No. 462 of 2012-13 (Annexure-7) whereby and whereunder the Respondent No. 3 mutated the land in favour of the Respondent No. 4 in violation to principle of natural justice and without considering the surrounding facts and circumstances. 2. The petitioner claims title and possession over the land situated at Mouza Lohardaga, P.S. Lohardaga, thana- 194, R.S. Khata no. 28, Plot No.544, municipal Plot No. 777 admeasuring area 0.24 2026:JHHC:21604 Page | 2 acres by virtue of a chain of registered sale deeds culminating in a sale deed dated 17.11.1959. The land was mutated in his favour in 1960, and he has since been paying rent with a long-standing Jamabandi in his name. On 10.09.2012, Respondent No. 4 obtained mutation of the same land on the basis of succession through Mutation Case No. 462 of 2012- 13, allegedly without notice to the petitioner and without considering his existing title and Jamabandi. 3. Although the petitioner's challenge before the LRDC succeeded on 09.02.2021, the Deputy Commissioner, in Mutation Revision Case No. 7 of 2021-22, restored the mutation in favour of Respondent No. 4 by order dated 23.11.2021. The Divisional Commissioner subsequently set aside the revisional order under Rule 76 of the Bihar Practice and Procedure Manual; however, the High Court, in W.P.(C) No. 2086 of 2022, quashed the Commissioner's order on the ground of lack of jurisdiction while granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the Deputy Commissioner's order before the appropriate forum. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned mutation order dated 10.09.2012 was passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice, as no notice or opportunity of hearing was ever afforded to the petitioner despite the existence of a long-standing Jamabandi in his favour. It is submitted that the petitioner's title flows from an unbroken chain of registered sale deeds commencing from 1924 and culminating in the registered sale deed dated 17.11.1959, followed by mutation in 1960 and continuous payment of rent. He further submits that Respondent No. 4 cannot claim mutation merely on the basis of succession after the original owner had already alienated the property decades earlier. The Circle Officer committed a patent error in mutating the land in favour of Respondent No. 4 solely on the basis of succession without examining the registered conveyances, mutation records, rent receipts and correction slips evidencing the petitioner's title and possession. The 2026:JHHC:21604 Page | 3 impugned order proceeds on an erroneous assumption that the Halka Karamchari's report recorded possession of Respondent No. 4, whereas the report contains no such finding, rendering the mutation order factually perverse. The Deputy Commissioner, while deciding the Mutation Revision Case No. 7 of 2021-22 on 23.11.2021, failed to appreciate the surrounding facts, documentary evidence and the petitioner's settled possession since 1959, thereby exercising revisional jurisdiction arbitrarily. The authorities ignored their own earlier finding recorded while rejecting the proceeding that a long-standing Jamabandi existed in favour of the petitioner and could not be disturbed without appropriate adjudication. Mutation proceedings are fiscal in nature and cannot override or nullify rights flowing from registered sale deeds. The revenue authorities exceeded their jurisdiction by virtually adjudicating title in favour of Respondent No. 4. The petitioner's long-standing Jamabandi existing since 1960 could not have been cancelled by revenue authorities without adjudication by a competent Civil Court. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 10.09.2012 and 23.11.2021 need to be quashed and the petitioner's mutation and Jamabandi to be restored. 5. Learned Counsel on the behalf of respondents submits that Respondent No. 4 is the lawful successor of the original recorded tenant and, therefore, rightly sought mutation on the basis of succession before the Circle Officer. It is submitted that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and do not finally determine title. The Revenue Authorities were only required to decide whether Respondent No. 4 was entitled to mutation for fiscal purposes. The Deputy Commissioner exercised revisional jurisdiction and found that the LRDC had erred in interfering with the mutation order passed by the Circle Officer. He further submits that the petitioner is seeking adjudication of disputed questions of title in a writ petition, which is impermissible under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the petitioner claims ownership on the basis of registered sale deeds, the appropriate 2026:JHHC:21604 Page | 4 remedy lies before the competent Civil Court by instituting a title suit rather than invoking writ jurisdiction against mutation orders. The respondents submit that the mutation granted in favour of Respondent No. 4 does not extinguish the petitioner's civil rights and is confined only to maintenance of revenue records. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and upon careful consideration of the pleadings and materials brought on record, I am of the opinion that the real question here is regarding the title, possession and succession of the land. The writ petition involves disputed factual questions relating to title, possession and succession, which cannot be conclusively determined in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, such questions are essentially factual in nature and require appreciation of evidence. While exercising writ jurisdiction, the High Court examines the legality, procedural correctness and jurisdictional competence of the impugned orders on the basis of the materials that were before the authority concerned. The High Court cannot undertake a fresh adjudication of disputed questions of fact, appreciate or reappreciate evidence for the first time, or permit parties to build an altogether new factual foundation which was never part of the proceedings before the statutory authorities. The appropriate remedy, if so advised, lies before the competent Civil Court where parties may lead oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. 7. Thus, the petitioner is directed to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the reliefs claiming right, title, interest and possession over the property in question, as it is the Civil Court where the petitioner’s claim can be adjudicated properly by appreciating evidence both oral and documentary. 8. The suit claiming the reliefs will be filed within six weeks after impleading the respondents herein as the defendants. 2026:JHHC:21604 Page | 5 9. Till the suit is decided, status quo in respect of possession over the property in question, as exist today, shall be maintained by the parties. 10. The Revenue Authority will abide by the judgement passed in the Civil Suit and will make necessary correction in the revenue records in terms of the judgement passed in the Title Suit. 11. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 21st July, 2026 S.K.D./CP-2 Uploaded on 30.07.2026