Dismissed

Dilip Kumar Tantiya v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC11 Feb 2015CWJC/6078/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Patna dismissed a writ petition challenging an order cancelling the petitioner's name from the land revenue record. The Court held that revenue entries do not create or extinguish rights and directed parties to seek a civil suit for title declaration.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; parties directed to approach civil court for declaration of title.

Dilip Kumar Tantiya Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Property and Title | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6078 of 1997 =========================================================== Dilip Kumar Tantiya son of Sita Ram, Tantiya, R/o Ward No.2, Holding No. 264, P.S. NIrmali, in the district of Supaul. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. None For the Respondent/s : Mr. None.

¶3

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 11-02-2015

¶4

Shivaji Pandey,J No one appears either on behalf of petitioner or the State .

¶5

As it is an old matter, this Court would like to dispose of the matter on the basis of materials available on the record.

¶6

In t he present case, petitioner is challenging the order dated 26^th February 1997 passed by the respondent Vice Chairman of Nirmali Notified Area Committee cancelling the name of petitioner from the register of right and directing to enter the holding, in the name of respondent no.6, Sri Bishnu Kumar Chaudhary. Further prayer has been made that the respondents be prohibited to issue receipt in favour of respondent no.6 and also not to interfere with the right and title of petitioner by disturbing his continuous possession over the house built long back over the land.

¶7

In the present case, matter relates to entry made in the records of right maintained by the Municipal Corporation with respect to land appertaining to Khata No. 136(new), 109(0ld), plot no. 1139(old) measuring 8 katha 10 dhurs.

¶8

Patna High Court CWJC No.6078 of 1997 dt.11-02-2015

¶9

2/3

¶10

The original land holder of the aforesaid land was Ram Anugrah Singh who was son of Bhagwat Narain Singh. Ram Pal Singh was own brother of Ram Anugrah Singh.

¶11

On partition, the land fell in the share of Rajendra Prasad Singh. Accordingly, the land was recorded on mutation in the name of Rajendra Prasad Singh. Rajendra Prasad Singh was son of Ram Pal Singh.

¶12

Case No. 216 of 1984 was filed by Diip Kumar Tantiya in the Municipality, vide order dated 4^th April 1987 claim of Dilip Kumar Tantiya and others was accepted and the name of Rajendra Singh was struck off from the record of rights. Bishnu Kumar Choudhary , respondent no.6 purchased the land from Rajendra Singh whereas Dilip Kumar Tantiya is said to have purchased from Parwen Kumar Singh son of Late Kameshwar Singh in the year 1995. Bishnu Kumar Choudhary filed Mutation Case No. 57 of 1996-97 on 18^th June 1996 whereas Dilip Kumar Tantiya also filed Mutation Case No. 101 of 1995-96 which was registered on 15^th July 1995.

¶13

It appears that both the parties have purchased the same piece of land one by one but admittedly the sale deed executed in favour of ‘Dilip Kumar Tantiya was later one. It also appears that Bishnu Kumar Chaudhary also got the land mutated in his favour, later on case no. 6 of 1997 the Vice Chairman record a finding that mutation in favour of petitioner is per se illegal as he purchased from the person who was not at all entitled to transfer the land in his favour whereas and Bishnu Kumar Chaudhary, respondent no.6 purchased from correct land holder and he has better claim over the land.

¶14

A counter affidavit has been filed on bgehalf of Respondent

¶15

Patna High Court CWJC No.6078 of 1997 dt.11-02-2015

¶16

3/3

¶17

no.6 which mentions the same story that Dilip Kumar Tantiya got the land mutated in his favour wrongly.

¶18

As there is a dispute of title, any entry made in the revenue record is only for the purpose of depositing the revenue rent of land. Entry in the revenue record neither creates any right nor extinguishes the right. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. However, both the parties, if so advised, may approach the civil court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of their right and title over the land in question.

¶19

With this observation, this petition is dismissed.

¶20

(Shivaji Pandey, J)

¶21

Jay/-

¶22

Dilip Kumar Tantiya v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kumar Tantiya v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Prasad Sinha Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Sri Jain Swetamber Bhandar Tir Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Ajay Kumar and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Sudha Rani Pandit Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Direndra Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Upendra Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar