RANCHI, India, Dec. 11 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Nov. 11:

1. The instant appeal under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 26.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 923 of 2024, by which the prayer for a direction upon the concerned Circle Officer for the issuance of rent receipt by inserting his name in the revenue record has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.923 of 2024, required to be enumerated, which reads as under: -

(i) The original raiyats' land in Thana No. 77 of Ramgarh District, totaling 5.00 acres, was acquired for the expansion of the Barkakana Railway Yard. After development, some land remained unused. The unused land was sold to Babu Narayan Mishra in 1939. After his death, his daughter Tara Devi sold this land to Loknath Modi in 1972, and his name was mutated in the state records.

(ii) Loknath Modi passed away, leaving five sons: Sudhir Chandra Modi, Umesh Prasad Modi, Dayanand Modi, Omprakash Modi, and Nagendra Modi. They partitioned the land in 2018, and the petitioner received 5.00 acres in Mauza Barkakana, Thana No. 77.

(iii) The petitioner applied for succession mutation, but the Halka Karmchari and Circle Inspector reported that certain plots belonged to Schedule Tribes or Gairmajarua Khata. The mutation application was rejected on 23.07.2022. Appeals and revision petitions were dismissed. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the mutation revision on 01.09.2023, citing the Land Acquisition Act, which requires unutilized acquired land to revert to original owners or the government land bank. Mutation cannot be granted unless the civil court decides the title.

Table omitted can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816xyW0m7%2BjqdL83weR1Ycmpudwi7TKubL5ub2U9nwWrBFk&caseno=LPA/532/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010143112025&state_code=7&appFlag=)

3. It is evident from the factual aspect that the land in question was originally in the name of the father of the appellant/writ petitioner, namely Loknath Ram Modi, who has since passed away, leaving behind five sons, including the appellant/writ petitioner. During his lifetime, the father of the appellant/writ petitioner partitioned the property among his five sons. The appellant/writ petitioner is one of the holders of the partitioned property and is residing in his respective portion based on the family arrangement.

4. The appellant/writ petitioner made an application for the insertion of his name in the revenue records, but the same was rejected, which led him to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. The ground taken by the mutating authority was that the land claimed by the appellant/writ petitioner does not have an independent title rather, he is a co-sharer in the property in question.

5. On the other hand, the case of the State is that the father of the appellant/writ petitioner did not have any title over the land in question. Rather, the land had been acquired by the Railways before independence. As such, it is incorrect on the part of the appellant/writ petitioner to contend that his father had an independent title over the said land and that he has consequently inherited that title.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816xyW0m7%2BjqdL83weR1Ycmpudwi7TKubL5ub2U9nwWrBFk&caseno=LPA/532/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010143112025&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.