Baba Baidyanath Medical Trust, through Its Authorized Representative Pankaj Kumar, Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Health

2025:JHHC:33094

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(C) No. 668 of 2025

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.

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

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.

¶8

Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar , officiating from his office at O/o Deputy Commissioner, Collectorate Building, P.O and P.S Deoghar, District- Deoghar.

¶9

Circle Officer, Deoghar, officiating from his office at Collectorate Building, P.O and P.S Deoghar, District- Deoghar. …Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶11

For the Petitioner: Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate Mrs. Smita Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent-State: Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA-III C.A.V. on 14.10.2025 Pronounced on: 03.11.2025

¶12

The Petitioner has, inter alia prayed for quashing of the order dated 4.12.2024 and 7.01.2025; whereby the mutation application of the Petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the Respondent-State for granting mutation in its favour.

¶13

2. Mr. Parth Jalan, Ld. Counsel representing the Petitioner-Trust, submits that the land situated within village Mohanpur, Thana No. 224, Jamabandi No.11, P.S. Jasidih, District- Deoghar, Plot Nos.301, 309, 310/689, 63, 64, 65, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 87, 88, 193, 197, 204, 282, 308, 339, 340, 341, 352, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 375, 381, 408, 417, 453, 81/685, 81 and 74; admeasuring an area of 26 acres and 50 decimals, along with land, buildings, structure including all movable items, such as medical machines and equipment, hospital fixtures and furniture (hereinafter referred to as the ‘scheduled property’) originally belonged to M/s Paritran Medical College and

¶14

2025:JHHC:33094

¶15

Hospital.

¶16

3. M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital Trust had taken a secured loan of ₹ 93,00,00,000/- (INR Ninety-Three Crores Only) from a consortium of Banks which was led by Punjab National Bank. This loan was declared a non-performing asset (N.P.A.) and ultimately an original application being O.A No. 154 of 2013 was filed by the creditor Bank against M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital (hereinafter referred to as debtor) for recovery of a total sum of ₹ 1,41,39,09,761.56 (INR One Hundred and Forty-One Crore Thirty-Nine Lakhs Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty-One and Paise Fifty-Six Only) (i.e., principal amount along with the accrued interest).

¶17

The original application was allowed in favour of the Bank and recovery proceeding was initiated against the debtor and property referred to hereinabove was put to auction, which was ultimately purchased by the Petitioner herein. Sale certificate was also issued and possession of the schedule property was also handed over to the Petitioner by the authority.

¶18

However, the debtor assailed the auction sale by filing a writ petition being WP(C) 165 of 2024 before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2024, on the ground that the writ petition was not maintainable.

¶19

The order of the Ld. Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 167 of 2024 vide order dated 8.8.2024. Even the Special Leave Petition being SLP(C) 49186 of 2024 filed by the debtor assailing the order of the LPA was also dismissed on 10.12.2024.

¶20

Even, the appeal which was filed by M/s Paritran Medical Trust, being EDRT No. 87 of 2025, was also been dismissed vide order dated 30.6.2025.

¶21

4. It has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner-Trust that at the behest of M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital Trust, its Security Guard initiated a proceeding under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar; was pleased to attach the property and appoint a receiver.

¶22

2

¶23

2025:JHHC:33094

¶24

The aforesaid action of the Sub-Divisional Officer was assailed before this Court by filing a writ petition, being WP(Cr) 121 of 2024 . The said writ application was allowed vide order dated 1.8.2024, wherein a coordinate Bench of this Court while allowing the writ petition observed that the peaceful possession of the property had been handed over to the Petitioner by adhering to all the procedures prescribed under law and the action of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar was without jurisdiction.

¶25

5. It has been further submitted by the Petitioner that the right, title, interest and possession of the Petitioner cannot be disputed by the State and its right to enjoy the property cannot be jeopardized. Further submission is made that, State is not having any claim over the said property; rather it is M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital Trust, which continued agitating its right against the Petitioner but has lost all such litigation. He contended that the State cannot join as a party to advance the cause of the judgment debtor who has lost legal battle against the Petitioner and does not have any right over the scheduled property.

¶26

6. Ld. Counsel further contended that the application of the Petitioner for the grant of mutation has also been rejected by the Respondent No. 3 on arbitrary grounds. It is pleaded that once mutation and revenue entries were made in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, the denial of the same on technical grounds and vague reasons that the Petitioner failed to produce the relevant document without indicating as to which document is to be furnished shows the arbitrariness on the part of the Respondent-State particularly in the attending facts of the case and where the Petitioner is an auction purchaser and the physical possession of the scheduled property is handed over by the competent authority which is an admitted fact. For purpose of mutation, the authority has to take into consideration as to whether possession is with the Petitioner or not.

¶27

7. Per contra, Ld. Government Advocate-III has raised an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of an efficacious and alternate remedy present. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent-State that Section 15 of the Bihar Tenant’s Holding (Maintenance of Record) Act, 1973, provides for a remedy of appeal before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector. It is submitted by the Respondent-

¶28

3

¶29

2025:JHHC:33094

¶30

State that the orders dated 04.12.2024 and 07.11.2025 themselves state that the orders are appealable. As an alternate and efficacious remedy is present, the instant writ petition is not maintainable and is fit to be dismissed in limine.

¶31

8. On merits, it is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the RespondentState that the land forming the subject matter of the instant writ petition is mulraiyati. He further submits that the transfer could not have been made in favour of the Petitioner without complying with the requirement under Section 20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949. Section 20 of the Act, 1949, mandates that permission has to be secure from the collector before the transfer is effectuated.

¶32

Lastly, Respondent-State has placed reliance on Section 89(2) of the Registration Act, 1908, to enunciate his argument that the sale certificate is required to be compulsorily registered, and without the same, no right, including mutation, can be effectuated in favour of the Petitioner.

¶33

9. In rejoinder, the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that mulraiyati is a transferrable right and is not hit by Section 20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949. The provision of Section 89(2) of Registration Act, 1908 is not applicable in case of auction sale and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Anr v. Ferrous Alloy Forging (P) Limited (2024 SCC Online SC 3372) , has held, that the sale certificate is not required to be registered. Further, Respondent-State, is trying to improve its case by way of affidavits as none of this reason is assigned in the impugned orders.

¶34

In so far as alternative remedy is concerned, writ petition is entertainable in the present facts of the case as it falls within the exceptions as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in series of judgements that a writ petition is maintainable where an action of the State suffers from patent illegality and arbitrariness.

¶35

10. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner concluded his argument by submitting that Mutation is governed by the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Record) Act, 1973, and is an administrative exercise only for the purposes of collection of revenue from the eligible raiyat. The State cannot travel beyond the scope of the law of mutation and deny entry of the name of the Petitioner in the record of rights. It is next submitted that once mutation is carried out in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the

¶36

4

¶37

2025:JHHC:33094

¶38

Petitioner, the same cannot be denied in favour of the Petitioner.

¶39

Ld. Counsel of the Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405, Madhaviben Jitendrabhai Rupreliya v. State of Gujarat (2024 SCC Online Guj 4410), Sahid Anwar v. State of Jharkhand (WP(C) 1378 of 2016) and Jitendra Kumar v. State of Jharkhand (WP(C) 1545 of 2025) .

¶40

11. Heard Ld. Counsel for the rival parties and perused the documents available on record and the averments made in the respective affidavits. The records reveal that the Petitioner had purchased the property forming the subject matter of the instant writ petitions by virtue of an auction conducted under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. Once the Petitioner emerged as the successful bidder, a ‘Sale Certificate’ dated 23.01.2024 was issued in its name. It is also not in dispute that the peaceful possession of the entire property has been handed over to the Petitioner by the Bank on 24.01.2024 at 3:17 PM. After securing the possession, the Petitioner applied for mutation; however, the same was rejected on 04.12.2024 on technical grounds. The second application, filed by the Petitioner was again rejected vide order dated 07.01.2025 on the ground that the Petitioner has failed to provide proper documents. This prompted the Petitioner to knock the door of this Court.

¶41

12. A preliminary objection has been raised with respect to the maintainability of the writ on the ground of an alternate and efficacious right of statutory appeal being present. The further contention of the State is that mutation cannot be granted owing to the fact that no permission/sanction has been taken as mandated under Section 20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949. Further, it is contended that the Sale Certificate is required to be registered as per Section 89(2) of the Registration Act, 1908.

¶42

13. Having regard to the facts stated hereinabove and the arguments advanced, the following issues have emerged to be decided by this Court: -

¶43

a. Whether the instant writ petition is maintainable, in light of the fact that the orders impugned in the instant writ petition are appealable ?

¶44

b. Whether the impugned orders rejection the Mutation in favour of the Petitioner-Trust is justified ?

¶45

5

¶46

2025:JHHC:33094

¶47

c. Whether mutation can be granted in favour of the Petitioner, considering Section 20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949, and/or Section 89 of the Registration Act, 1908 ?

¶48

14. The Respondents has raised an issue with respect to the maintainability of the instant writ petition on the ground of an efficacious and alternate remedy, i.e., a statutory appeal under Section 15 of the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Record) Act, 1973.

¶49

It is trite law that the plea pertaining to the ‘non-maintainability’ of a writ petition on the ground of an alternate remedy is not absolute. This issue has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a series of judgement and recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of A.P Electrical Equipment Corporation v. Tahsildar and Ors 2025 SCC OnLine SC 447 has held as under :-

¶50

“ 52. In one of the recent pronouncements of this Court in State of U.P, v, Ehsan, 2023 INSC 906, this Court observed that:-

¶51

“28. We are conscious of the law that existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on exercise of writ jurisdiction. More so, when a writ petition has been entertained, parties have exchanged their pleadings/affidavits and the matter has remained pending for long. In such a situation there must be a sincere effort to decide the matter on merits and not relegate the writ petitioner to the alternative remedy, unless there are compelling reasons for doing so. One such compelling reason may arise where there is a serious dispute between the parties on a question of fact and materials/evidence(s) available on record are insufficient/inconclusive to enable the Court to come to a definite conclusion .

¶52

15. In the instant case, the facts are not disputed by the StateRespondent meaning thereby that the title and the possession of the Petitioner cannot be disputed. It is also not in dispute that the property forming the subject matter of the instant case was acquired by the Petitioner by way of an auction. The possession is also not disputed by the State, and as such, the only question involved is legal issue pertaining to mutation and the legality of the orders impugned in this order.

¶53

Thus, the denial of the mutation in favour of the Petitioner who happens to be a transferee even when the transferor’s name was mutated suffers from patent illegality and arbitrariness. Accordingly, this Court holds the instant writ petition to be maintainable and the same can be entertained by this Court.

¶54

6

¶55

2025:JHHC:33094

¶56

16. The second and third issues are interconnected which pertains to the legality of the order dated 4.12.2024 and 7.1.2025, wherein the mutation applications have been rejected, and whether the mutation can be granted considering Section 20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949, and/or Section 89 of the Registration Act, 1908.

¶57

17. It is the case of the Respondent-State that the land in question is mulraiyati in nature and the land cannot be mutated without permission from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar as per the requirement under Section 20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949.

¶58

17. In this regard it is to be indicated that Mulraiyati is a transferrable right, subject to certain condition. The sina qua none for the transfer of such a right is that the right of recorded mulraiyat cannot be subjected to partition by gift, transfer or otherwise. A mulraiyat is entitled to transfer, by a single transaction his entire mulraiyati right in a village, including his private holding. The transferee of a mulraiyati right cannot enjoy his right to the office of mulriayat until so recognized by the Sub-Divisional Officer. This is recorded in the statutory rules, notification and orders in Santhal Pargana Manual, 1911.

¶59

In the attending facts of the case, thereof there is no bar in mutating the land in favour of the Petitioner. The Petitioner can exercise the rights and duties of its office as mulraiyat in the said village on recognition by the Sub-Divisional Officer, but so far as the right of enjoyment over the property acquired by virtue of auction, there is no bar in law.

¶60

18. It further transpires from the record that the nature of the land has been changed from agricultural land to land being used for the purpose of establishing a medical college as evident from letter dated 6.11.2007 (Page No. 137 of the writ petition). This fact is not disputed by the State. At this stage, it is profitable to refer to the judgement of Dhena Hansda and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors (2003 SCC Online Jhar 274) and confirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Dhena Hansda and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors (2010 SCC Online Jhar 802) wherein it is held that application of Section 20 cannot be invoked where nature of the land has changed. In light thereof, the argument by Respondent-State made with

¶61

7

¶62

2025:JHHC:33094

¶63

respect to the application of Section 20 of the Act, 1949 would not stand in the way of mutation. Since mutation is governed by Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 therefore the Circle Officer, is competent to carry out mutation under Section 14 of the said Act.

¶64

19. It has been further argued by the State Counsel that the Sale Certificate is required to be compulsorily registered under the Registration Act, 1908 and accordingly, without registration, no mutation could be done. The law is well settled that in case of Sale Certificate, the same is not required to be registered. Reference may be made to the recent judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Anr v. Ferrous Alloy Forging (P) Limited (2024 SCC Online SC 3372) , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that a Sale Certificate is not compulsorily required to be registered.

¶65

In any event, the only requirement for mutation is that the person concerned must be in possession and the competent authority cannot travel into the questions of title. In the present case the title of the Petitioner is free from any ambiguity. In light thereof, I have no hesitation in holding that the argument advanced by the Respondent-State with respect to Section 89 of the Registration Act, 1908, has no impact on the application acceptance/rejection of the mutation case.

¶66

20. Now the law is no more res integra that mutation, if exists in favour of the transferor, the transferee’s claim for mutation cannot be denied. Reference may be made to the case of Sahid Anwar v. The State of Jharkhand (WP(C) 1378 of 2016), this Court has held as under:-

¶67

“ 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 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/RegisterII 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

¶68

8

¶69

2025:JHHC:33094

¶70

not permit the Circle Officer to deny the mutation.”

¶71

Further, in the case of Jitendra Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand (WP(C) 1545 of 2025) , this Court directed the Circle Officer to pass an order of mutation failing which he would be liable to pay a cost of ₹ 50,000/- (INR Fifty Thousand Only).

¶72

21. As a matter of fact, Mutation is not a judicial or a quasi-judicial exercise but is purely administrative in nature. The purpose of mutation is simply to ascertain who is to pay rent to the public exchequer and is only for fiscal purposes. This issue has already been adjudicated in the case of Anil Kumar Bajaj v. State of Jharkhand and Ors (2024 SCC Online Jhar 4097). The relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced as under:-

¶73

14……. Moreso, when the exercise of creation/opening of a new jamabandi itself, does not is not a judicial or a quasi-judicial process. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment rendered in the case of Depta Tewari v. State of Bihar, 1987 PLJR 1037. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under for ready reference:—

¶74

“8. In my view the Officers passing the orders on mutation matter do not exercise any judicial or quasi-judicial function. They arrive at a decision of possession on the basis of the evidence placed before them including the reports of the officers concerned…..

¶75

22. Lastly, the orders impugned in the instant case, does not mention anything about the lack of jurisdiction of the Circle Officer, owing to the mulraiyati nature of the land. I find substance in the argument made by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that the State cannot improve its case and the reliance placed on the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405. For brevity, relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced as under for ready reference: -

¶76

“ 8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16] :

¶77

“Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.” Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older .

¶78

9

¶79

2025:JHHC:33094

¶80

23. Having regard to the attending facts of the case, applicable laws and material available on record, the order dated 4.12.2024 and 7.1.2025, is hereby, quashed and set-aside being illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, the concerned Respondent is directed to complete the process of mutation by making the necessary entry in Register-II and issue revenue rent receipts in favour of the Petitioner within a period of 4 (Four) weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

¶81

24. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Pending I.As., if any, also stands closed.

¶82

November 03, 2025

¶83

Fahim/AFR/Uploaded on 06/11/2025

¶84

10

Baba Baidyanath Medical Trust, through Its Authorized Representative Pankaj Kumar, v. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Health

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baba Baidyanath Medical Trust, through Its Authorized Representative Pankaj Kumar, v. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Health

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Ram Krishna Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bharat Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Runjay Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Baba Baidyanath Medical Trust, through Its Authorized Representative Pankaj Kumar, Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Health

Sunil Kumar Sultania Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Road Construction Department

Mahavir Das Vs Home Department