PATNA, India, Aug. 19 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on July 21:
Heard the parties.
2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-
(I). For issuance of writ or writs in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to restore the Jamabandi in favour of previous recorded raiyat, (Ancestor and father of the petitioner) on the basis of order dated 30/12/24 passed by the Additional Collector, Rohtas in Revision case no.-12/2018.
(II). For issuance of order / direction to the respondents specifically to the respondent no.- 5 (Circle Officer, Sasaram) to comply the order dated 30/12/2024 passed by the Addl. Collector, Rohtas, in Mutation revision case no.-12/2018 by which he has allowed the mutation revision case in favour of petitioner/revisionist.
(III). For any other order/orders, direction/directions may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that land appertaining to Mauza-Kothra, Thana-Agrer, R.S. Khata No. 92, Chak Khata No. 93, R.S. Plot 198, C.S. Plot-123, Area5 acre 8 Decimal is the ancestral property of the petitioner and the said land has been allotted to the petitioner through family partition. He further submits that on the basis of right, title and possession, the petitioner has sold the land in question but without paying the final consideration money of the sale deed and without informing the petitioner, the purchasers of the said land applied for Mutation before the Circle Officer, Sasaram bearing Mutation Case No. 390/ 2016-17. He further submits that without issuing notice to the petitioner and without verifying the actual possession over the land in question, the Circle Officer, Sasaram allowed the said mutation case in favour of the purchasers of the said land. Learned counsel further submits that against the order of Circle Officer, Sasaram, the petitioner preferred appeal bearing Mutation Appeal No. 11/ 2017-18 before the Deputy Collector Land Reform, Sasaram which was rejected by the concerned authority. Learned counsel further submits that the order of Deputy Collector Land Reform, Sasaram was challenged by the petitioner before the Additional Collector, Rohtas by filing Mutation Revision Case No. 12/ 2018 and the Additional Collector, Rohtas after hearing the parties set aside the order passed by the Circle Officer, Sasaram as well as Deputy Collector Land Reform, Sasaram. Thereafter, the petitioner has represented before the Circle Officer, Sasaram as well as District Magistrate, Sasaram for compliance of order passed by the revisional authority but up till now no order has been passed.
4. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that if the petitioner files fresh representation raising his grievance before the concerned authority, the same shall be looked into.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, the present writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation before the competent authority for redressal of his grievance within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. If such representation is filed within the stipulated period, the concerned authority is directed to consider and dispose of representation of the petitioner by giving him due opportunity of hearing as per provision of law without being prejudiced by the order passed by this court expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of representation.
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
