RANCHI, India, July 10 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on June 10:
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
1. Petitioners being aggrieved by the rejection of application for mutation in Mutation Case No.620 R 27/2024-25/ Daru has moved this Court in the writ jurisdiction.
2. Petitioners claim the land, in question, on the basis of a Registered Sale deed executed on 29.10.2024 by the Respondent No.5. It is contended that the jamabandi was running the name of father of Respondent No.5 and after the said purchase, the petitioners moved the Circle Officer, Daru, District- Hazaribag for mutation of the land, in question.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no formal order of rejection has been passed, rather a rejection information has been sent without stating the ground on which the application for mutation has been rejected.
4. Learned AC to SC (L&C)-I for the State submits that there is statutory provision of appeal under Section 15 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 and without exhausting the said remedy, the petitioners have moved this, Court. Further, the formal order of rejection has been passed on the basis of the report of Deputy Sub-Inspector and the Circle Inspector. It is also submitted that the claim of title and possession is based on an unregistered sale-deed which is barred by Section 17 of the Registration Act.
5. Having heard the submissions advanced on both sides, it is manifest that a non-speaking order has been passed by the Circle Officer, Daru, District- Hazaribagh. Any authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function is under mandate to pass a reasoned order. To only state that adverse reports were submitted by the Deputy SubInspector and the Circle Inspector, without disclosing what was the content of the report, or ground for rejection of mutation application cannot be said to be a legal order. Reasons are necessary for the appellate courts to consider the ground of rejection.
6. I find merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that opportunity of hearing to the petitioners under Section 14 of the said Act, 1973 was denied and although, there is statutory remedy of appeal, but it will not be in the interest of justice to relegate the petitioner to the appellate forum when the impugned order ex-facie suffers from infirmity.
7. Impugned information is accordingly set aside and respondent no. 4 is directed to pass a reasoned order afresh within 90 days after hearing the petitioners and other parties, if any.
Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.
I.A., if any, is disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Respondent No.4 [The Circle Officer, Daru, P.O. & P.S.-Daru, Dist.-Hazaribagh] for its compliance at once.
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
