The petitioner challenged a mutation order allegedly favoring the widow of his deceased brother without marriage. The Court held mutation affects only revenue records, not title, and the writ petition was dismissed directing the petitioner to file a civil suit.
Writ application dismissed; petitioner directed to file a title suit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8698 of 1994 =========================================================== Bhola Singh, son of Late Janaki Singh, resident of village – Khanwan, P.S. – Narahat, District – Nawada.
.... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Kamala Devi, wife of Late Mano Singh, resident of village – Khanwan, P.S. – Narahat, District – Nawadah. 3. The Anchal Adhikari, Narahat Anchal, P.S. – Nawdah, District – Nawadah. 4. The Additional Collector, Nawadah, P.S. – Nawadah, District – Nawadah. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
.... .... Respondents
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 16-04-2015
When the case was called out for final hearing, neither the petitioner nor the respondent no. 2, private contesting respondent were present. Learned counsel for the State is present.
2. There is a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State which is on record. This is a matter purely with regard to mutation. Writ petitioner claims that his brother Late Mano Singh died without solemnizing any marriage. His claim is that respondent no. 2 wrongly claimed before the mutation authorities that she was the widow of Late Mano Singh and wrongly got properties in the share of Mano Singh mutated in her name. Writ petitioner further claims that he came to know the mutation proceeding only after final order was passed. He accordingly challenged the order in
Patna High Court CWJC No.8698 of 1994 dt.16-04-2015
2
appeal without success and hence he has come to this court.
3. Mr. Harsh Singh, learned counsel for the State points out that mutation proceedings related only to maintenance of revenue records for the purposes of the suit. They do not confer title. If the writ petitioner contests the right, title and interest of respondent no. 2 namely, Kamla Devi, the proper remedy for him under the circumstances would be to file a Title Suit and get his title declared over the properties. He further points out that from the order of the Mutation Officer which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure – 1, it is evident that the writ petitioner was duly represented all along in the proceedings. There is no averment either before the authorities or by any application before the authorities or in the present writ application that the order-sheet does not reflect these two state of affairs. The proper course for the writ petitioner was to apply to Mutation Officer itself for correction of its record before proceeding in the matter. Not having done so, he is now stopped from pleading that he was not noticed or not represented.
4. Having considered the matter, in my view the submission is correct. Whether Mano Singh had married with Kamla Devi or not is a question which could be decided by the civil court upon dispute being raised.
5. In the mutation proceedings, writ petitioner had appeared. If the writ petitioner states that he had not appeared and
Patna High Court CWJC No.8698 of 1994 dt.16-04-2015
3
order-sheet wrongly recorded this fact, I am of the view, the proper course was that the writ petitioner should have applied to the same before authority for correction of records. That is a well settled principle. It is only if authority had refused to correct the records the matter could have progressed. That not having been done, the writ petitioner cannot be heard saying that he had no notice of the proceedings. Secondly, mutation proceedings are only for the purposes of revenue records. They confer no right, title and interest.
6. If the writ petitioner wants to challenge the right, title and interest of respondent no. 2, the proper course would be to institute a suit in a civil court and get his right, title and interest declared.
7. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)
Rajeev/NAFR
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can challenge the mutation order declaring the respondent's ownership without first applying for correction of the mutation record.
Whether mutation proceedings confer right, title, or interest in property that can be challenged via writ petition.
Bhola Singh
The State of Bihar
Kamala Devi
The Anchal Adhikari, Narahat Anchal
The Additional Collector, Nawadah
Navaniti Prasad Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
