Dismissed¶30

Rajiv Kumar Agrawal v. The State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC1 May 2025CWJC/5771/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court; CWJC No.5771 of 2019; Dr. Anshuman, J.; decided 01-05-2025; mutation order dated 28.06.2017 in Mutation Case No.1203/2016-17 challenged as review by Circle Officer without jurisdiction; sections 6(11) and 6(12) Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011; prohibition on mutation where title suit/partition suit pending among co-sharers; Title (Partition) Suit No.188/1997; Mutation Appeal No.17/2017; final appellate order 12.06.2019; remedy before revisional authority; writ petition dismissed with liberty to avail statutory remedy.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted; writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail his statutory remedy before the higher authority if, so advised. ¶30

Rajiv Kumar Agrawal Vs The State of Bihar and Ors. — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief granted; writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail his statutory remedy before the higher authority if, so advised.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 28.06.2017 passed in Mutation Case No.1203/2016-17 (and analogous cases) should be quashed as wholly without jurisdiction — the Circle Officer having purportedly reviewed his own order contrary to statute — and as contravening the embargo in sections 6(11)-(12) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 prohibiting mutation of land in which a title suit/partition suit is pending among co-sharers. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

Counsel for the petitioner could not show which property was the subject matter both of the plaint schedule of Title (Partition) Suit No.188/1997 and of the mutation case, and was unaware whether any amendment to the plaint had been filed; in this view the Court entertained doubt.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

This Court was not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner in the available facts and circumstances, which included the earlier challenge to the impugned order in Mutation Appeal No.17/2017 (final order 12.06.2019) and the remaining remedy before the revisional authority.

¶30

Key takeaways

The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to avail his statutory remedy before the higher authority if, so advised.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Dr. Anshuman, J.), CWJC No.5771 of 2019, decided 01-05-2025: writ petition by Rajiv Kumar Agrawal sought quashing of the order dated 28.06.2017 in Mutation Case No.1203/2016-17 (and analogous cases) as wholly without jurisdiction — the Circle Officer having purportedly reviewed his own order contrary to statute — and as breaching sections 6(11) and 6(12) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011, which prohibit mutation of land in which a title suit/partition suit is pending among co-sharers. Counsel could not identify which property lay both in the schedule of the pending Title (Partition) Suit No.188/1997 and in the mutation case, nor confirm whether any amendment had been made to the 1997 plaint, creating doubt in the Court's mind. The impugned order had already been challenged in Mutation Appeal No.17/2017, in which a final order came on 12.06.2019, leaving the petitioner a remedy before the revisional authority. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to pursue the statutory remedy before the higher authority.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5771 of 2019

¶2

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

¶3

Rajiv Kumar Agrawal Son of Late Babu Arvind Kumar Agrawal Resident of Mohalla- Mungeriganj, Police Station- Begusarai Town, Police StationBegusarai Town, P.O.- Anchal, Sub-Division, Sub-Registry and DistrictBegusarai

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reform, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna, Bihar

¶7

The Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reform, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna, Bihar

¶8

The Collector, Begusarai

¶9

Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Begusarai

¶10

Circle Officer, Begusarai

¶11

Circle Inspector, Begusarai

¶12

Karamchari, Circle Office, Begusarai

¶13

Jitendra Narayan Agrawal Son of Late Rabindra Narain Agrawal Resident of Mohalla- Mungeriganj, Police Station and District- Begusarai

¶14

... ... Respondent/s

¶15

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Aastha Ananya, Advocate For the State : Mr. Navnit Kumar ( AC to GP-18 ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER

¶16

5 01-05-2025

¶17

Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned

¶18

Counsel for the State.

¶19

The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief/s:-

¶20

I. For quashing of the order dated 28.06.2017 passed in Mutation Case No.1203/2016-17 and analogous cases as wholly without jurisdiction as the Circle Officer has reviewed his order which power is not conferred on him by statute and in

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.5771 of 2019(5) dt.01-05-2025 2/3

¶22

the teeth of embargo contained in provision of section 6(11) and (12) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 which prohibit mutation of land in which Title Suit/Partition Suit is pending among co-sharer.

¶23

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the property which is the subject matter of the Title (Partition) Suit No.188/1997 has been subject to the mutation, without considering this aspect of the matter that under Section 6(12) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 (Act No. 23 of 2011), the law is very clear that for those property for which title suit is pending, no mutation could not be made.

¶24

This Court has directed the petitioner to show from the orders of the mutation as well as from the schedule of the plaint that which property is the subject matter of the plaint as well as the mutation case.

¶25

In response thereof, Counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to show it and submits that perhaps mistake has taken place on the part of the plaintiff as the plaint has been filed in the year 1997 and this mutation has been filed later on.

¶26

Upon specific query of the Court that whether any amendment has been filed in the plaint or not, Counsel for the petitioner submits that she is not aware that whether amendment

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.5771 of 2019(5) dt.01-05-2025 3/3

¶28

and the plaint has been filed or not. In this view of the matter, it creates doubt in the mind of the Court.

¶29

Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand submits that the said order dated 28.06.2017 passed in Mutation Case No.1203/2016-17 has been challenged by the petitioner in Mutation Appeal No.17/2017 before the Appellate Court in which final order has come on 12.06.2019 and now, remedy lies to the petitioner is before the revisional authority.

¶30

In this background, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner in the available facts and circumstances. Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed with liberty granted to the petitioner that he may avail his statutory remedy before the higher authority if, so advised.

¶31

(Dr. Anshuman, J)

¶32

Divyansh/-

¶33

Rajiv Kumar Agrawal v. The State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajiv Kumar Agrawal v. The State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Chaudhary @ Manoj Sahini Vs The State of Bihar

Dipu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Bijendra Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Dinesh Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Verma Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Raj Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.