RANCHI, India, July 22 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on June 23:

1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order issued vide Memo No. 1066(ii) dated 13.12.2024, whereby the application of the petitioner for mutation of his land under Khata No. 113, Plot No. 16, Thana No. 140, Mouza- Bajra measuring 0.37 acre has been rejected by the Circle Officer, Hehal, Ranchi.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the land was purchased by registered sale deed No. 13282/13912 dated 15.03.1971 from Md. Ashique, Son of Haji Israil Saha. After the said purchase, the name of Munna Bhagat son of Dasai Bhagat was duly entered in Mutation Case No. 52R27/72-73 and thereafter, the petitioner is in settled possession of the land and is continuously paying the rent to the State. The rent receipt is also enclosed to the writ petition.

3. It is argued by the learned counsel that the Circle Office, Hehal-respondent no. 4 for the reason best known to him, has rejected the mutation application when the jamabandi is presently running in the name of his father. Earlier the petitioner has moved in W.P.(C) No. 3186 of 2021 which was disposed of with the direction to the respondent to pass a reasoned order.

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has a statutory remedy under Section 15 of the Jharkhand Tenant Holding Maintenance of Record Act, 1973.

5. It is true that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy, but in the writ petition, alternative remedy is self-imposed restrictions and it cannot be rejected on maintainability, when there are pulpable error in the impugned order.

6. It is evident from the materials on record that the land in question was purchased by the father of the petitioner by way of registered sale deed and after the said purchase, it was duly mutated in his name and jamabandi was opened and rent was paid. There is no mention in the impugned order that the said jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner was cancelled at any point of time.

7. Under the circumstance, the Circle Officer, Hehal could not have reopened the matter when the son of the jamabandi raiyat moved the Revenue Authority for mutation. The reason that has been assigned for rejection in the order of mutation is perverse.

8. Therefore, the Circle Officer, Hehal (respondent no. 4) is directed to pass order afresh within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which, the Circle Officer, Hehal will be individually liable to pay a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner. The said amount will be realizable as a money decree passed by civil court. The cost is not punitive in nature, but is only intended to see that the petitioner is not to run from pillar to post for a simple order from a competent authority.

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Circle Officer, Hehal forthwith.

With the aforesaid direction, Writ Petition stands disposed of.

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.