Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking mutation of land in his name. The Court observed he was a power of attorney holder, not an owner, and directed mutation of lands in his name would be wrong. The Court found lack of clear proof of ownership in favor of the principal, Ram Chandra Roy, and dismissed the application.
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. 369 of 2020
======================================================
Subodh Kumar Bhagat, aged about 64 Years (Male) Son of Late Jagdish Prasad Bhagat @ Jagdish Prasad resident of Station Road Sonali, Police Station- Kadwa, District- Katihar power Attorney Holder of Sri Ram Chandra Ray, Son of Late Sudhir Chandra Ray, resident of R/3, Cluster 8, Purbachal Salt Lake City, Police Station- Salt Lake, Kolkata- 700097 (West Bengal).
... ... Petitioner/s
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. J P Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, SC 25 Ms. Prakritita Sharma, AC to SC 25
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-01-2020
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SC
25 for the State.
relief:
“That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs directing the respondents to create Zamabandi by mutating the name of the petitioner in the Revenue Record (Register-II) pursuant to the Appellate order passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Barsoi on 7.2.2018 in Mutation Appeal No. 1 of 2015-16 and or to grant any other relief or reliefs for which
Patna High Court CWJC No.369 of 2020 dt.16-01-2020 2/4
petitioner is legally entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
the petitioner has tried to play smart with the Court. He is the Power of Attorney Holder for land belonging to Ram Chandra Roy. With regard to the same, there were proceedings initiated before the Revenue authorities, basically for mutation. The petitioner claims to be the Power of Attorney Holder for such land being authorized to deal with all proceedings filed in the name of the Principal i.e., Ram Chandra Roy. However, in the entire pleadings, the petitioner has prayed for the mutation by the authorities in his name. He further claims to be the person who had filed petition for mutation of the land in question. This is a patently incorrect stand as there cannot be any question of there being any mutation in the name of the petitioner as he is a mere Power of Attorney Holder only to proceed in the matter relating to such property before the concerned authorities but in the name and on behalf of Ram Chandra Roy. The Court, thus, finds that the petitioner has misled the Court. Moreover, from the pleadings, the Court finds that for the title of Ram Chandra Roy on the lands which form part of the Power of Attorney, only with regard to 9 decimals out of 97 decimals, there is a decree that too, in favour of Ram Chandra Roy and three others and not alone in the name of
Patna High Court CWJC No.369 of 2020 dt.16-01-2020 3/4
Ram Chandra Roy. With regard to other lands, there is nothing on record to show as to how such land belongs to Ram Chandra Roy. Thus, the Court finds that no cogent or believable material is available with the petitioner to indicate that the lands in question should be mutated in the name of the petitioner. Even otherwise, it was only Ram Chandra Roy, who would have been entitled to mutation of the lands in question in his name, if at all, he is able to show that the lands belonged to him, which from the materials on record, the Court does not find to be fully explained.
Patna High Court CWJC No.369 of 2020 dt.16-01-2020 4/4
have not mutated the lands in question in favour of the said persons.
dismissed
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
P. Kumar
AFR/NAFR U T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, being a mere power of attorney holder, is entitled to mutation of land in his own name.
Whether the petitioner has established clear proof of ownership of the land in question to warrant mutation.
Whether Revenue authorities acted arbitrarily in not mutating the land in the name of Ram Chandra Roy in absence of ownership proof.
Subodh Kumar Bhagat
The State of Bihar
The District Magistrate, Katihar
The Additional Collector, Katihar
The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Barsoi
The Circle Officer, Kadwa
Ahsanuddin Amanullah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
