2026:JHHC:11362 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5672 of 2018 ------- Biraj Devi, aged about 65 Yrs, W/o. Sri. Late Kishto Prasad Sao, R/o. Mouza Panichattar, P.O. + P.S.- Seraikella, Dist: Seraikella-Kharswan, Jharkhand … Petitioner Versus (1) The State of Jharkhand. (2) Divisional Commissioner, Kolhan Division, Chaibasa, P.O. + P.S. Chaibasa, Dist: West Singhbhum, Jharkhand (3) Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella, P.O. + P.S. Seraikella, Dist: Seraikella Kharswan, Jharkhand (4) Land Reform Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella, P.O. + P.S. -Seraikella, Dist: Seraikella Kharswan, Jharkhand (5) Circle officer, Seraikella, P.O. P.S. Seraikella, Dist: Seraikella Kharswan, Jharkhand (6) (a) Rupananda Singh Deo, aged about 68 years, W/o late Jairaj Singh Deo, R/o Saraikela, P.O + P.S. Saraikela, Dist. Seraikela-Kharswan. (b) Raj Vikram Singh Deo, S/o Late Jairaj Singh Deo, R/o B-293 Lake Garden Kolkata, P.O +P.S.- Kolkata, Dist. Kolkata, West Bengal. … Respondents ------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Adv. For the State : Mr. J.F.Toppo, G.A. -V : Mr. Neil Abhijit Toppo, AC to GA-V For the Respondents : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Adv. : Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. ------- CAV on:- 16/03/2026 Pronounced on:-15/04/2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing of the order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the 2nd Respondent in Mutation Revision No. 06/2018; whereby the learned Commissioner while entertaining a second revision application, which is barred under the law, has quashed and set aside the order passed in Mutation case No. 2026:JHHC:11362 2 55/88 & Misc 56/87-88 as well as Misc. case No. 01/2016-17. 3.(a) Briefly stated, as per the pleadings is that in 1987, Petitioner and her husband purchased the land in question from Krishna Kumari Devi (daughter-in-law of Rajendra Pratap Singh Deo) and Rahul Kumar Singh Deo (grandson of Rajendra Pratap Singh Deo) vide 2 registered sale deeds. On 05.05.1988, after the purchase, petitioner and her husband applied for mutation and the aforesaid land was mutated in their favour in mutation case No. 55/87-88 & 56/87-88 and rent receipts were also issued in the name of husband of the petitioner. (b) Respondent No.6 instituted a mutation case being Mutation Case No. 05/96-97 for entering his name for the purpose of mutation for 12.77 acres of land in Khata No.43 as well as for 7.16 acres of land in Khata No. 44 and accordingly, correction slip in the name of Respondent No.6 for a total land of area 19.93 acres was issued. (c) Thereafter, on 10.05.2002, Petitioner and her husband preferred an appeal before the Land Reform, Deputy Collector, Seraikella u/s 15 of the Bihar Tenant's holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 which was registered as Misc. Case No.01/2001-2002 and vide order dated 10.05.2002, the said appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, Petitioner and her husband, preferred a revision application u/s 16 of the Act which was registered as Mutation revision case No. 07/2002-03 and after hearing the parties, vide order dated 27.02.2004, learned Commissioner, quashed and set aside the order dated 15.02.2001, passed in Misc. Case No. 5/96-97 as well as order dated 10.05.2002 passed in Appeal No 2026:JHHC:11362 3 01/2001-2002 and remanded the matter back to Circle officer, Seraikella for passing a fresh order. (d) None of the parties challenged the order dated 27.02.2004 passed in Revision Case No. 07/2002-03 and they even participated in the proceedings before the learned Circle officer, Seraikella. (e) On 27.04.2007, Circle officer, after remand instead of passing order in mutation Case No. 05/1996- 97, registered a Misc. Case being Misc. Case No.01/2006-07 and held that matter pertains to correction in records of right which can be done by competent civil court and as such, applicant was directed to approach competent civil court. (f) After a gap of almost ten years after passing of the order dated 27.04.2007; on 19.12.2017, Petitioner again approached the office of circle officer, Seraikella to accept rent from her. Pursuant thereto, a Misc. Case No. 01/2016-17 was registered by the circle officer and after due enquiry, it was ordered that rent be accepted from the petitioner and rent receipts be issued. (g) After this development, Respondent No.6 preferred a revision application being Mutation Revision No. 06/2018 before Commissioner, challenging the order dated 19.12.2017 passed in Misc Case No. 01/2016-17, orders passed in Mutation Case Nos. 55/87-88, 56/87- 88 and order dated 27.02.2004 passed in Mutation revision No. 07/2002-03 and letter No. 1689/A. Petitioner after appearance, filed her objection. On 15.10.2018, the Respondent No. 2) vide order dated 15.10.2018, quashed the orders passed by the circle officer in mutation Case No. 55/87-88, 56/87-88 as well as quashed order passed in Misc. Case No. 01/2016 against the all provisions of law. 2026:JHHC:11362 4 Aggrieved with the Commissioner’s order dated 15.10.2018, the present writ application has been filed. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a settled law that when a land is mutated in favour of a person, the same cannot be mutated again, unless the previous mutation order is set aside (u/s 15 or 16 of Bihar Tenant Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973) or same is mutated as per the provisions provided u/s 14 of the Act. Order passed in Mutation Case No. 55/87-88, 56/87-88 was to be challenged within 30 days u/s 15 of Bihar Tenant Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 which was never done. Same was challenged for the 1st time after 30 years before Commissioner, Kolhan Division, Chaibasa, who has no adjudicatory jurisdiction. It has been further submitted that Respondent No.6 did not have any documents and has also not filed any document before this Court to show that he has even prima facie title over the land situated at Thana No. 297, Khata No. 44, Khesra No. 148, Mouza Panichhattar, Seraikella, area 7.16 Acres. Thus, there was no ground for mutation in favour of Respondent No.6 in terms of section 14 of Bihar Tenant Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 and it was illegally mutated. Further, the Respondent No.2, vide order dated 27.02.2004, passed in Mutation revision case No. 07/2002-03 had set aside the mutation order passed in mutation case No. 05/1996-97 as well as appellate order of L.R.D.C dated 10.05.2002 and the case was remanded to Circle officer. The said order had attained finality and was not challenged by Respondent No.6. 2026:JHHC:11362 5 5. Mr. Tewari submitted that it is settled law that after repeal of section 17 of Bihar Tenant's holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, Commissioner has no power to entertain a second revision application and despite lack of jurisdiction, he has entertained the second revision. Further, if at all respondent No.6 was aggrieved by order dated 19.12.2017 passed in Misc Case No. 01/2016-17, same was to be challenged before L.R.D.C., Seraikella and not before the Commissioner, Chaibasa. It is settled law that Commissioner does not have any adjudicatory power in mutation matter after repeal of section 17 of Bihar Tenant Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. Hence order dated 15.10.2018 passed by Commissioner, Singhbhum, Kolhan Division, Chaibasa in Mutation revision No. 06/2018 is liable to be set aside by this Court. 6. It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for the 6th Respondent that the Circle Officer under the Bihar Tenants (Maintenance of Records) Act has no power to review its own order. The Patna High Court in the case of CWJC No. 12446 of 2024, relying on the judgment passed in Kedar Singh v. State of Bihar 2001 (3) PLJR 723, has held that the Circle Officer being a quasi- judicial authority does not have the power to review its order. It has been further submitted that the Circle Officer, Saraikela vide order dated 27th of April 2007 passed in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2006-07 placing reliance on the order dated 27th of February 2004 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Saraikela in Mutation Revision No. 7 of 2002-03, dismissed the application filed by the husband of the Petitioner with a direction that he may approach the Ld. Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. 2026:JHHC:11362 6 Thereafter, the Circle Officer by allowing to open the Jamabandi in the name of Kistu Prasad vide order dated 19th of December 2017 in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2016-17, has reviewed its own order dated 27th of April 2007 in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2006-07. Mr. Krishna had also submitted that the order dated 19th of December 2017 passed in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2016-17 was totally without jurisdiction as the Circle Officer, Saraikela had no power to review its earlier order. 7. It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for the State that the Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division has rightly passed the Impugned Order exercising power under Section 28 of the Bihar Tenants (Maintenance of Records) Act 1974. Further, Section 28 of the Bihar Tenants (Maintenance of Records) Act 1974 provides for the superintendence power of the Collector. Section 28 of the Act 1974 is reproduced as under:- "General direction, control and superintendence of the Collector etc.- The Land Reforms Deputy Collector and the Anchal Adhikari shall in performance of their duties and in the exercise of their power under this Act, be under the general direction, control and superintendence of the Collector of the district, the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue." He had also submitted that since the order dated 19th of December 2017 passed in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2016-17 was completely illegal and without jurisdiction, therefore the Commissioner exercised the power under Section 28 of the Bihar Tenants (Maintenance of Records) Act 1974 and passed the order dated 15th of October 2018. Ld. State Counsel referred the judgment rendered in the case of Manohar Lal Jain v. State of 2026:JHHC:11362 7 Jharkhand 2004 (3) JCR 362. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as under:- "5(M) Consequently, this Court holds that the Circle Officer not having acted within the parameters of law, his order was illegal and de hors the provisions of the statute. Since it is held that the original order passed by the Circle Officer was illegal, the Appellate and1 Revisional Orders dated 6th of July 1998 and 4th of October 1999 (Annexure 3 and 4) dismissing the Appeal and the Revision filed by the Respondent No. 6, amount to upholding illegalities and therefore, they must be declared to be also illegal. Consequently, this Court refrains from setting aside the order of the Commissioner because by doing so, the effect would be to revive the illegal order of the Circle Officer and would virtually mean giving the seal of approval to an illegality. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order of the Commissioner was within the confines of law because by resorting to inherent powers, he correctly set aside the order of the Additional Collector which arose out of the said illegal proceedings. In the instant case therefore, even on deletion of Section 17, the Commissioner must be held to have correctly exercised his powers under Section 28 which has the effect of rectifying an inherent defect in the orders of his subordinate officers over whom he did have the power of control and superintendence." In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is submitted that the Commissioner has rightly passed the Impugned order exercising his power of control and superintendence. It is lastly submitted that Impugned Order ought not be set aside as the same will revive an Illegal order and Illegality cannot be said to be perpetuated. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits it appears that the mutation concerning the land in dispute has got a checkered 2026:JHHC:11362 8 history. The following facts, as per records of the case, remain undisputed: (i) The land in dispute concerns land under khata no. 43 (12.77 acres) and khata no. 44, (7.16 acres) of Mauza Panichhattar, thana no. 297, which is recorded in the name Rajendra Prasad Singhdeo, son of Raviraj Singhdeo in the recent survey settlement records of rights. (ii) The Panji-II was also opened in the name of recorded tenant-Rajendra Prasad Singhdeo, son of Raviraj Singhdeo. (iii) Subsequently, the name of Bhupendra Naryan Singhdeo, son of Aditya Pratap Singhdeo was entered in Panji-II However, subsequently vide order passed in Mutation case no. 50 of 1982-83, Jamabandi was corrected by entering the names of three heirs of recorded tenants, viz. (1) Rahul Kumar Singhdeo (2) Krishan Kumari Singhdeo (3) Apurva Kumari Singhdeo. (iv) Against the order passed in Mutation case no. 50 of 1982-83, original petitioner Jairaj Singhdeo, as son of late Bhupendra Naryan Singhdeo, filed an application before the C.O. Seraiekella. The C.O. Seraikella instituted Misc. case no. 05 of 1996-97 and after enquiry and verification sought permission from LRDC Seraikella for correction Jamabandi. The LRDC Seraikella, vide letter no. 196, dated 15.02.2001, issued to C.O. Seraikella directed him to correct the Jamabandi after enquiry. Accordingly, the C.O. Seraikella allowed the application vide order dated 16.02.2001 and the Jamabandi in respect of land under the aforesaid two Khatas was ordered to be recorded in the name of Jairaj Singhdeo and correction slip was issued. (v) Meanwhile, (1) Rahul Kumar Singhdeo (2) Krishna Kumari Singhdeo (3) Apurva Kumari Singhdeo: sold the 2026:JHHC:11362 9 land aforesaid in favour of Kishto Sahu, husband of present petitioner; by two deeds of sale bearing no.789, dated 9.04.1987 and 3103, dated 7.12.1987. (vi) Kishto Sahu applied for mutation concerning the said land purchased by him and same was allowed by the C.O. Seraieklla, vide order passed in Mutation case no. 55 and 56 of 1987-88. (vii) As per order passed by C.O. Seraikella, in Misc. case no. 5 of 1996-97, the order passed in Mutation case no. 55 and 56 of 1987-88 was corrected; and Jamabandi was corrected in the name of Jairaj Singhdeo. Being aggrieved, Kishto Sahu approached the LRDC, Seraikella by filing an appeal bearing Misc. case no. 01 of 2001-02, which was dismissed vide order dated 10.05.2002. (viii) Against the order passed in Misc. case no. 1 of 2002-03, a revision was preferred by the petitioner before Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharswa, which was registered as Mutation revision case no. 07 of 2002-03. (ix) The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 27.02.2004 set aside the order of mutation in favour of Respondent no. 6 and remanded the matter to CO Seraikella for passing a fresh order. (x) As per order of remand, a proceeding for mutation of the land in dispute was initiated before the CO, Seraikella, registered as Mise. case no. 1 of 2006-07 and both parties were noticed vide order dated 6.06.2006. (xi) Finally, the C.O. Seraikella, vide order dated 27.04.2007, passed in said Misc. case no. 1 of 2006-07, closed the proceeding for mutation by observing that “the matter concerns Records of rights and right, title and interest”; as such applicant, i.e. Biraj Devi was directed to approach competent court. 2026:JHHC:11362 10 9. Thus, by the said order passed by the C.O. Seraikella, in Misc. case no. 1 of 2006-07, issue of mutation concerning the said land in favour of the petitioner, was set at rest and petitioner was directed to approach the competent court. No averment has been made by the petitioner that she either filed an appeal against the said order or approached competent court of law. Therefore, the aforesaid order of C.O. Seraikella became final and binding for the parties. 10. The records further reveal that the petitioner suppressing the aforesaid facts; neither filed any appeal, nor abide by the direction given by the C.O. Seraikellla in Misc. case no. 1 of 2006-07, and after almost after 10 years of the said order, she lodged a complaint before the Mukhyamantri Jansamvad / Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella that order passed in Mutation revision case no. 2 of 2002-03 has not been complied with. This was done by suppressing the order passed by the C.O. Seraikella, in Misc. case no. 1 of 2006-07. 11. However, petitioner on the basis wrong and fraudulent complaint, managed to obtain a direction from the office of the DC, through letter no. 1689/A, dated 3.11.2016. By the aforesaid letter the C.O. Seraikella was directed to comply with direction issued in Mutation revision case no. 7 of 2002-03 and was further directed to send necessary sanction / approval through proper channel. The very issuance of letter no. 1689/A, dated 3.11.2016; which was basis for initiation of Misc. case no. 1 of 2016-17 is vitiated by fraud and material suppression. 2026:JHHC:11362 11 The entire proceeding for mutation was initiated and completed as per direction contained in letter no. 1689/A, dated 3.11.2016. Accordingly, the correction slips and Malguzari receipt have been issued in the name of petitioner in compliance of direction contained in letter no. 1689/A, dated 3.11.2016. 12. Under section 28 of Bihar Maintenance of Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act 1973, the Collector is vested with powers of granting direction, control and superintendence over C.O., LRDC and Deputy Commissioner in performance of their duties under the Act and collector is having jurisdiction to have general supervision over the acts done by the said officers under the act. 13. As a matter of fact, the application filed by the Respondent no. 6 was not entertained as a second revision; rather the same was entertained as serious irregularity and infirmity was pointed out by the respondent no. 6, which was committed by C.O. Seraikella, in compliance of direction issued from the office of D.C Seraikella, vide his memo no. 1689/A, dated 3.11.2016. The aforesaid direction was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, under a misconception of facts and on the basis of application submitted by petitioner with suppressed information. As the C.O. Seraikella had acted as per direction of Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella and LRDC Seraikella, it appears that Respondent no. 6 would be denied a fair and just opportunity of hearing therefore the Respondent no. 2 entertained the application submitted by him exercising powers under section 28 of the Act. 2026:JHHC:11362 12 14. The objections raised by the petitioner have been dealt with in the impugned order, which is a reasoned and speaking order. The order passed by the C.O. Seraikella, in Misc. case no. 55 & 56 of 1987-88, were already set aside by the C.O. Seraikella in Misc. case no. 5 of 1996-97. The entire matter was remanded by the Deputy Commissioner Seraikella in Mutation revision по. 7 of 2002-03 and it was finally concluded by order dated 27.04.2007 passed by C.O. Seraikella in Misc. case no. 1 of 2006-07. Thus, it was the direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner, vide letter No. 1689/A, dated 3.11.2016 issued under the, signature of ADC, Seraikella which was an illegal direction and entire proceeding of Misc. case no. 1 of 2016 and order passed therein are without jurisdiction and illegal. When the same was brought to the notice of the Respondent no.2, he was constrained to exercise its powers under section 28 of the Act. Thus, the order dated 19th of December 2017 passed in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2016-17 was completely illegal and without jurisdiction, therefore the Commissioner exercised the power under Section 28 of the Bihar Tenants (Maintenance of Records) Act 1974 and passed the order dated 15th of October 2018. 15. Having regards to the entire chronological event it is evidently clear that when the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 27.02.2004 set aside the order passed in Misc. case No.5 of 1996-97 and Misc. Case No.1of 2001-02 remitted the case back to the Circle Officer and when no order was passed; petitioner filed Misc. Case No.1/2006-07 which was dismissed with a direction that he may approach Civil Court for competent 2026:JHHC:11362 13 jurisdiction. The Circle Officer after remand order passed an order in Misc. Case No.01/06-07 has categorically held as under: - Revision case No.-07/02-03 के कं डिका 1-4, में उपायुक्त महोदय द्वारा स्पष्ट ककया गया है कक जमाबंदी संशोधान की शक्क्तया ससर्फ समाहताफ उपायुक्त को है। ककन्तु अधधकार असिलेखा (Records of right) को correction करने की शक्क्तयााँ ससर्फ व्यवहार न्यायालय की है। इस तरह िूसम सुधार उपसमाहताफ द्वारा Correction करन बबल्कु ल ही गलत है। अतः सारे तथ्यों के आधार पर पर यह मामला अधधकार का असिलेख (Records of Right) का बनता है। ऐसी क्स्ितत में ररकोिफस अर् राईट (असििलेखा का अधधकार) का तनधाफररत होने के उपरान्त ही तनर्फय ददया जा सकता है। अतः वाद की बंद को जाती है आवेदक सक्षम न्यायालय में जा सकते है। This order of the Circle Officer dated 27.04.2007 was never challenged by either of the party and had attained finality. Thus, when this order was never challenged; any subsequent order has no bearing. It has already been indicated that when nothing was done after remand, petitioner moved before Chief Minister grievance cell and from that route he got a direction and ultimately his name was mutated which is not permissible in the eye of law. 16. Therefore, seeing the illegality, the order dated 19th of December 2017 passed in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2016-17, the Commissioner correctly exercised the power under Section 28 of the Bihar Tenants (Maintenance of Records) Act 1974 and passed the order dated 15th of October 2018. 17. Accordingly, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The Circle Officer after remand order had already passed an order in Misc. Case No.01/06-07 with 2026:JHHC:11362 14 a direction that the Petitioner may approach Civil Court for competent jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ application stands dismissed. However, no cost. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Fahim/- NAFR/AFR Uploaded on 21/04/2026