Bajrang Prasad Umar Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Principal Secretary Department of Revenue

2026:JHHC:6046

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2126 of 2021

1.Bajrang Prasad Umar aged about 68 years S/o Late Prahlad Prasad Sah resident of Vill-Rohini, P.O. Rohini, P.O. Rohini, P.S. Jasidih, District-Deoghar.

¶4

Dasrath Sah aged about 74 years S/o Late Prahlad Prasad Sah resident of vill- Rohini, P.O. Rohini, P.S. Jasidih District-Deoghar.

¶5

Dinesh Kumar aged about 46 years S/o Sri Dasrath Sah resident of vill-Rohini, P.O. Rohini, P.S. Jasidih, District-Deoghar.

¶6

Mina Devi, age-62 years D/o Late Prahalad Prasad Sah, wife of Sri Gouri Shankar Gupta, resident of Parmeshwar Chowk, Rohini, P.O. Rohini, P.S. Jasidih, District…. Deoghar. Petitioner(s)

¶7

-VERSUS-

¶8

State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land reform its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, DistrictRanchi.

¶9

Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. & Dist.Deoghar.

¶10

Land Reform Deputy Collector, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Deoghar.

¶11

District Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Deoghar.

¶12

Biplab, Bose aged about 50 years s/o Sujit Kumar Bose R/o 19 School Road, P.O. & P.S. Bhawanipur, Dist.Kolkata, State West Bengal.

¶13

16/- Anna Raiyat of Mouza Rohini, P.O. Rohini, P.s. Jashidih, Dist-Deoghar. …..Respondent (s)

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶15

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.N.Tiwary, Adv For the Respondent (s) : Ms. Sweta Shukla, A.C. to AAG-II Mr. Arpan Mishra, Adv

¶16

14/04.02.2026

¶17

The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the entire proceeding including the

¶18

1

¶19

2026:JHHC:6046

¶20

order dated 17.03.2021 in Revenue Miscellaneous Case No. 11/2020-2021, issued by the 3^rd respondent.

¶21

2. Briefly stated, on 30.05.1960, Atindra Nath Mitra, the legal heir of the recorded tenant, sold the land situated in Mouza Rohini, Thana No. 196, Jamabandi No. 275. The subject property, measuring an area of 23.73 acres, is Lakhraj (rent free land) in nature and Basouri (transferable). The said transfer was affected by execution of a registered Sale Deed No. 1357 dated 30.05.1960 in favour of Prahlad Prasad Sah.

¶22

Thereafter, Prahlad Prasad Sah filed Mutation Case No. 253/1971–72 before the Circle Officer, Deoghar. Upon due enquiry, verification of all relevant documents, and consideration of the enquiry report, the Circle Officer allowed the mutation. Rent was fixed through a correction slip, the name of Prahlad Prasad Sah was entered in Register-II, and rent receipts were issued in his favour. Since then, he and thereafter the petitioner has been paying rent regularly.

¶23

During his lifetime, Prahlad Prasad Sah executed a gift deed in the year 1986 in respect of 2.50 acres of land appertaining to Jamabandi No. 275 under Mouza Rohini, Thana No. 196, comprising Plot Nos. 2716 and 2717 (part), by a registered gift deed dated 28.01.1986, in favour of Mina Devi (Petitioner No.4).

¶24

The Mutation order was passed after considering the enquiry report and verifying all the document, and then the mutation was made in her favour and since then she has been paying the rent regularly. 3. It further transpires from records that after a lapse of 61 years, a fictitious person, namely Biplab Bose (respondent No. 5), appeared and filed a frivolous petition before the learned

¶25

2

¶26

2026:JHHC:6046

¶27

Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, alleging that a forged sale deed had been executed and, on that basis, mutation has been made in favour of Prahlad Prasad Sah. On such flimsy and untenable grounds, he sought deletion of the name of Prahalad Prasad Sah and entry of his own name in Register-II.

¶28

Pursuant thereto, the Respondent No. 3 entertained the said petition and instituted Revenue Miscellaneous Case No. 11/2020–21, titled Biplab Bose vs. Brahmdeo Umar and Others.

¶29

On 26.02.2021, a notice was issued to the petitioners, fixing 05.03.2021 as the date of appearance in Revenue Miscellaneous Case No. 11/2020–21.

¶30

The petitioner appeared on 05.03.2021 and filed a showcause reply along with a specific objection petition dated 10.03.2021, raising the issue of jurisdiction. It was specifically contended that after a lapse of 61 years from the date of mutation, the respondent had no jurisdiction under law to make any correction in Register-II on the allegation of forgery, as adjudication of alleged forged documents lies exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent civil court.

¶31

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Respondent No. 3 acted in a highly biased and prejudiced manner during the proceedings. This is evident from the fact that even though one of the parties, namely Brahmadeo Umar, died on 13.03.2021 during the pendency of the case and the petitioner filed a petition dated 16.03.2021 before Respondent No. 3 seeking substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased Brahmadeo Umar; but despite of this the petition dated 16.03.2021 was rejected without assigning any reason. Thereafter, Respondent No. 3, in a highly hasty, illegal and

¶32

3

¶33

2026:JHHC:6046

¶34

arbitrary manner, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without considering the show-cause, documents or revenue records, passed a mechanical order dated 17.03.2021; whereby the petition filed by Respondent No. 5 was allowed and the claim of the petitioner was rejected.

¶35

5. From perusal of the entire order sheet of the Misc. Case No. 11/2020-21 it is evident that the case was filed on 26.02.2021 and on 17.03.2021 the case has been decided in favour of the respondents.

¶36

6. As stated hereinabove, during pendency of the proceedings in Misc. Case No. 11/2020-21, one of the defendants-Brahmadeo Umar died on 13.03.2021, and this petitioner had made a petition on 16.03.2021 before the 3^rd respondent for substituting Brahmadeo Umar with his legal heirs. However, from record it evident that on 17.03.2021 itself, the impugned order has been passed, that too, without hearing the petitioner or anybody else, and the petition for substitution was rejected on 16.03.2021.

¶37

7. This Court is having no hesitation in holding that the impugned order is patently illegal for the reason that when an application has been filed for substitution with the legal heirs of one Brahmadeo Umar, who has been claimed to have died on 13.03.2021; then, without hearing and without knowing any fact, the said application was dismissed on 16.03.2021.

¶38

At the cost of repetition, from the order sheet, it does not transpire that in the order dated 16.03.2021, there was any reason for rejection of substitution petition. The order simply indicates that the petition on behalf of opposite party has been rejected and certainly, it was done without assigning any

¶39

4

¶40

2026:JHHC:6046

¶41

reason and finally on 17.03.2021 the impugned order has been passed.

¶42

8. Having regards to the above, this Court holds that the impugned order dated 17.03.2021 in Revenue Miscellaneous Case No. 11/2020-2021, issued by the 3^rd respondent, is hereby, quashed and set-aside.

¶43

Nevertheless, this court is not going into the merits of the case and the case is remitted to the same officer i.e. LRDC, Deoghar, (Respondent No.3) to firstly substitute the name of the legal heirs in place of the deceased person, namely Brahmadeo Umar, and pass an order after hearing both the parties after deliberating on each and every question of fact as well as of law. The parties herein would be at liberty to raise any ground, both on facts and law, before the concerned officer and he is directed to pass a well-reasoned order.

¶44

9. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed.

¶45

(Deepak Roshan, J)

04.02.2026

Amardeep/

Uploaded 11.03.2026

5