Allowed¶24

Kumar Vaibhav Vikash v. The State of Bihar

Land Records/Mutation – Bihar

Patna HC11 Nov 2024CWJC/6471/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court CWJC No.6471 of 2024, decided 11-11-2024 by Satyavrat Verma, J. Keywords: mutation of land; Circle Officer Purnea East; DCLR Sadar Purnea; Mutation Appeal No. 75 of 2019-20; Divisional Commissioner Purnea; Memo no. 467; non-compliance with appellate order; subordinate officer cannot sit over superior authority's orders; remedy before competent court if aggrieved; four-week compliance direction; Revenue Karamchari report; Mouza Maharajganj, Purnea; writ of mandamus for mutation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Circle Officer, Purnea East to mutate the petitioner's name over the land in question in accordance with law, in view of the D.C.L.R., Sadar Purnea and Divisional Commissioner, Purnea Division orders, within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. ¶24

Kumar Vaibhav Vikash Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the Circle Officer, Purnea East could continue to withhold implementation of the mutation allowed by the DCLR, Sadar Purnea in Mutation Appeal No. 75 of 2019-20 and of the Divisional Commissioner's compliance direction, without challenging those orders before a competent court. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The Court found that the State's counsel could not demonstrate that the Circle Officer had moved any court of competent jurisdiction against the appellate order or the Divisional Commissioner's order, if aggrieved thereby; a subordinate officer aggrieved by superior orders must pursue legal remedies rather than sit over them.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The Circle Officer, Purnea East is directed to mutate the name of the petitioner over the land in question in view of the orders passed by the D.C.L.R., Sadar Purnea and the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea Division, in accordance with law, within four weeks from receipt/production of a copy of the order.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land Records/Mutation - Bihar - Non-compliance with appellate order. The petitioner, having purchased the disputed land in Mouza Maharajganj (Khata No. 238, Plot No. 05, 5.25 decimal; Plot No. 09, 1.05 decimal) through registered sale deeds, filed Mutation Case No. 2044, R-27 of 2019-20 before the Circle Officer, Purnea East, who rejected it on 25-12-2019 based on the Karamchari's report. The DCLR, Sadar Purnea allowed Mutation Appeal No. 75 of 2019-20 on 16-09-2023, setting aside the rejection, and the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea by order dated 30-5-2024 (Memo no. 467) specifically directed compliance. As the Circle Officer neither implemented the orders nor challenged them before any competent court, the High Court (Satyavrat Verma, J) directed him to mutate the petitioner's name over the land in question in accordance with law within four weeks of receipt/production of a copy of the order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6471 of 2024

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Kumar Vaibhav Vikash Son of Sri Madan Mohan Prasad, resident of MohallaSouth of Pancham Bhawan, Tara Nagar, Madhubani, P.S.- K. Hat, DistrictPurnea.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Collector, Purnea.

¶8

The Additional Collector, Purnea.

¶9

The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Purnea.

¶10

The Circle Officer, Purnea East, Purnea.

¶11

Bhagirath Prajapati, the Revenue Karamchari of Revenue Halka Nagar Nigam A/1, Circle Office, Purnea East, Purnea P.S.- K. Hat, District- Purnea.

¶12

... ... Respondent/s

¶13

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Amit Kumar Anand For the Respondent/s : AC to GP-6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶14

2 11-11-2024 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to GP-6.

¶15

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in dispute in the instant writ petition pertains to MouzaMaharajganj, Khata No. 238, Khata No. 02, Plot No. 05, area 5.25 decimal of land and Plot No. 09, Area 1.05 decimal of land. It is next submitted that the land in dispute belongs to Madhumita Sen. It is further submitted that legal heirs of Madhumita Sen had given a registered power of Attorney No. 6081 dated 16-11-2007 in favour of Pradeep Kumar Barnawal

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.6471 of 2024(2) dt.11-11-2024 2/4

¶17

and the said Pradeep Kumar Barnawal sold the land by a registered sale deed to one Amar Kumar Keshari and Amar Kumar Kesari vide registered sale deed No. 11069 dated 11-082018, sold the land to Peeyush Kumar Keshari, and the petitioner purchased the land in question from Peeyush Kumar Keshari by registered sale deed No. 11394 dated 18-8-2018.

¶18

3. It is next submitted that petitioner after purchasing the land in question filed Mutation Case No. 2044, R-27 of 2019-20 before the Circle Officer, Purnea East, Purnea. It is next submitted that based on the mechanical report of the Karamchari , the Circle Officer, Purnea East rejected the mutation application by an order dated 25-12-2019 (Annexure1). It is next submitted that against the order dated 25-12-2019 passed by the Circle Officer, Purnea East, the petitioner filed Mutation Appeal No. 75 of 2019-20 before the DCLR, Sadar Purnea. The Mutation Appeal No. 75 of 2019-20 came to be allowed by an order dated 16-09-2023 (Annexure-2). It is submitted that the order of the Circle Officer was set aside in appeal by the DCLR, but still the Circle Officer, Purnea East for reasons best known was not complying with the order of the of the appellate authority which led the petitioner to move before the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea seeking a direction upon

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.6471 of 2024(2) dt.11-11-2024 3/4

¶20

the Circle Officer to comply with the orders of the appellate authority. It is submitted that the Divisional Commissioner also after hearing the party passed order dated 30-5-2024 contained in Memo no. 467 (Annexure R-3 to rejoinder to the counteraffidavit filed by the petitioner), wherein a specific direction was given to the Circle Officer to comply the order of the appellate authority in appeal No. 75 of 2019-20. It is submitted that despite order of the appellate authority and the Divisional Commissioner, the Circle Officer is sitting tight over the matter and the reason is obvious that he intends his hands to be greased. Learned counsel fairly submits that if for any reason the Circle Officer is aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority and the Divisional Commissioner, he has remedies available in law to approach a court of competent jurisdiction but then not having done so, the Circle Officer cannot sit over the orders of his superior authority which amply demonstrates that it is a clear cut case of insubordination.

¶21

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner based on the pleadings made in the counter affidavit nor is in a position to demonstrate that the Circle Officer against the appellate order

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.6471 of 2024(2) dt.11-11-2024 4/4

¶23

and the order of the Divisional Commissioner has moved before a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with law, if he is aggrieved by their order.

¶24

5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the Circle Officer, Purnea East, is directed to mutate the name of the petitioner over the land in question in view of the order passed by the D.C.L.R., Sadar Purnea, and the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea Division, in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶25

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶26

SUMIT/-

¶27

Kumar Vaibhav Vikash v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar Vaibhav Vikash v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arbind Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Dr. Rabindra Nath Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Satya Narayan Agrawal, Vs The State of Bihar

Mukul Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Shammi Vs The State of Bihar

Sunaina Devi Vs The State of Bihar