2026:JHHC:10477 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 666 of 2022 ------- Muneza Khatoon, aged about 66 years, widow of Late Md. Rafique, resident of Village: Bhurongodih, PO: Chandauri, PS: Tisri, District-Giridih …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, PO & PS: Giridih, District- Giridih 3. Additional Collector, Giridih, PO & I'S: Giridih, District- Giriclih. 4. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih, P.O & P.S. Giridih, District Giridih. 5. District Land Acquisition Officer, Giridih, P.O & P.S Giridih, District, Giridih. …..Respondent ------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Petitioner : Ms. Karishma Kumari, Adv. : Mr. Sunil Kr. VishwaKarma, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III ------- 11/Dated:01.04.2026 The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner, praying therein for quashing and setting aside the order dated 22-11-2021 (Annexure-8), passed by the 2nd respondent; whereby the name of this petitioner for grant of Rayati Manyata Certificate has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are as follows: (i) On 25/1/1929 by a registered sale deed, the land measuring an area of 3.48 acres under different plots of Khata No. 61 were purchased by one Quadar Ali and Ramzan Ali, sons of Umar Ali and Liyaquat Ali, sons of Hyder Ali from the ex-landlord. On 16/9/1935, by registered sale deed, Habib Mian and Hamid Mian acquired the lands. (ii) On 22/6/2007, by registered Will, Sakina Khatoon, daughter of Late Habib Mian executed a Will in favour of the petitioner in respect of Plot no. 10 under Khata No. 60 measuring an area of 371/3 decimals. 2026:JHHC:10477 2 (iii) On 22/12/2014, Respondent no. 3 requested the 5th respondent to submit a report after verification, amongst others, in respect of the lands in question. On 3/3/2015, Respondent, no. 5 forwarded the report of the Halka Karamchari and that of the Circle Inspector to the 3rd Respondent in response to his letter dated 22/12/2014. (iv) On 20/10/2015, Respondent no. 5 submitted a report before 3rd respondent giving in details regarding acquisition of land measuring an area of 28 decimals by the petitioner who is legal heir of purchasers and rent receipts are issued in her name. (v) On 8/2/2016, Petitioner made an application before the 2nd respondent to issue Raiyati Manyata Certificate as the land was being acquired for the purpose of railway line. Pursuant thereto, on 20/7/2016, Respondent no. 3 requested the respondent no. 5 to submit verification report for the purpose of Raiyati Manyata Certificate. (vi) On 14/5/2009, Revenue and Land Reforms Department of the Government of Jharkhand issued guidelines to treat the Gair Majarua land, in possession of a Raiyat for the last more than 30 years, as Raiyati land. (vii) Thereafter, Petitioner preferred a writ application being W.P.(C) No. 5069 of 2017 for a direction upon the respondent no. 2 to issue Raiyati Manyata Certificate. (viii) On 29/3/2019, this Court dispose of the writ application being W.P.(C) No. 5069 of 2017 directing the 2nd respondent to take the final decision in respect of the claim of the petitioner within a period of four months. (ix) On 22/4/2019, Petitioner submitted an application along with the copy of the order dated 29/3/2019 passed in W.P. (C) No. 5069 of 2017 to the respondent no. 2. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a contempt case being Contempt (Civil) No. 635 of 2021 for non- compliance of the order dated 29/3/2019. (x) On 30/11/2021, a Show Cause was filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 in Contempt (Civil) No. 635 of 2021 enclosing therewith the copy of the order dated 22/11/2021; whereby the 2nd respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not comply with the provisions of the law by not obtaining probate of the Will. 2026:JHHC:10477 3 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner draws attention of this Court towards the impugned order, particularly the operative part and she contended that there is no law under the Mahomedan Law by MULLA that a Will has to get supported by a probate certificate. She further draws attention of this court towards Section 131 of the Mahomedan law. In support of her contention, she further referred to the order passed by the Bombay High Court in the case of Bilquis Zakiuddin Bandookwala Vs. Shehnaz Shabbir Bandukwala, reported in 2010 SCC Online BOM 1909, wherein it has been held that the probate is not necessary in a Will executed by Muhammadan under Muhammadan Law. Accordingly, she prayed that the impugned order be quashed, and Raiyati Manyata Certificate be issued in favour of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submits that as a matter of fact in the Will itself, there was a wish of the executor that the said Will should be supported by a probate. However, learned counsel though could not dispute the fact that under Mahomedan law, probate certificate is not necessary; however, he reiterated that since in the Will itself, there was a specific assertion to get the probate certificate, there is no error in the order. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order coupled with Section 131 of the Mohammadan law; which specifically stipulates that a Will may be admitted even there is no probate has been obtained. For brevity, Section 131 of Mahomedan Law by MULLA is extracted herein below. 2026:JHHC:10477 4 131. Probate of a Mahomedan Will (1) A Mahomedan will may, after due proof, be admitted in evidence even though no probate had been obtained. (2) In the case of a Mahomedan will, the estate of the testator vests in the executor, if be accepts office, front the date of the testator's death, and he has the power to alienate the estate for the purpose of administering it, and has all other powers of an executor under the Probate and Administration Act, 1881, and the corresponding provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. 6. At this stage, it is also relevant to indicate Section 57 & 58 of Indian Succession Act, which categorically states that the provisions of this part shall not apply to testamentary succession to the property of any Mahomedan. For brevity, Section 57 & 58 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 is extracted here in below:- 57. Application of certain provisions of Part to a class of wills made by Hindus, etc. -The provisions of this Part which are set out in Schedule III shall, subject to the restrictions and modifications specified therein, apply— (a) to all wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina, on or after the first day of September, 1870, within the territories which at the said date were subject to the Lieutenant- Governor of Bengal or within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts of Judicature at Madras and Bombay; and (b) to all such wills and codicils made outside those territories and limits so far as relates to immoveable property situate within those territories or limits; (c) to all wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina on or after the first day of January, 1927, to which those provisions are not applied by clauses (a) and (b):] Provided that marriage shall not revoke any such will or codicil. 58. General application of Part. -(1) The provisions of this Part shall not apply to testamentary succession to the property of any Muhammadan nor, save as provided by section 57, to testamentary succession to the property of any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina; nor shall they apply to any will made before the first day of January, 1866. (2) Save as provided in sub-section (1) or by any other law for the time being in force the provisions of this Part shall constitute 2026:JHHC:10477 5 the law of [India] applicable to all cases of testamentary succession. 7. In the case at hand, it appears that the sole ground taken by the concerned respondent for rejecting the claim of Raiyati Manyata Certificate is that the Will was not supported by any probate. However, for the reasons discussed above, inasmuch as, no probate is required in the case of Will by a Mohammadan, the impugned order requires interference 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22-11- 2021 (Annexure-8), passed by the 2nd respondent, is hereby, quashed and set aside. The concerned respondent, i.e. Respondent No.2 is directed to issue the “Rayati Manyata Certificate” to the petitioner forthwith, but in any case, not beyond the period of six weeks from the date of receipt / production of copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A.s if any, also closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) April 01, 2026 Uploaded on 13/04/2026 Fahim/- AFR