Suryamukhi Devi @ Suryamukhi v. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8416 of 2021 ====================================================== Suryamukhi Devi @ Suryamukhi Wife of Kamata Prasad Resident of village - Chainpur, P.O. and P.S. Chainpur, District- Kaimur at Bhabua. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Principal secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms, Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Additional District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua. 3.

The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Bhabua, District- Kaimur at Bhabua. 4.

The Circle Officer, Chainpur, district- Kaimur at Bhabua. 5.

Brij Nandan Singh Son of Late Purushottam Singh Resident of village - Chainpur, P.O. and P.S. Chainpur, District- Kaimur at Bhabua. 6.

Brij Kishore Singh Son of Late Tulsi Singh Resident of village - Chainpur, P.O. and P.S. Chainpur, District- Kaimur at Bhabua. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Garg For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Lalit Kishore (Ag) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 11-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. Writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.12.2019 passed by Learned Member(Administrative), Bihar Land tribunal in BLT case No. 564 of 2018 whereby he affirmed the order dated 5.12.2017 passed by Additional District Magistrate, Kaimur in Mutation Revision No. 44 of 2015-16 whereby the order dated 26.11.2014 passed by Learned DCLR, Bhabua in Mutation Appeal No. 44 of 2011-12 and order dated 27.09.2011 passed by Learned Circle Officer, Chainpur in mutation case No. 828 of 2011-12 was set aside.

3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is illegal in view of the fact that section 6(12) of the Bihar Mutation Act, 2011 came in

Patna High Court CWJC No.8416 of 2021(3) dt.11-01-2024 2/3 existence from 22.12.2011, whereas the present Mutation Case No. 1101 of 2011-12 was filed on 20.10.2011. Therefore, old mutation Act will be applicable in the present matter. Hence, order passed by the BLT on the basis of section 6(12) of the Act is contarary to law and is fit to be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality or irregularity in order passed by the Bihar Land Tribunal in BLT Case No. 564 of 2018 by which the Member (Administrative), BLT, has dismissed the BLT case. He submits that order dated 24.12.2019 has been passed by the BLT keeping in view the fact that the land in question is subject matter of Title Suit No.150 of 2009 which is still pending in the Civil Court in which petitioner is a party. Moreover, parties before the BLT and in the title suit, are common. Learned counsel also submits that the Additional Collector, Bhabua has rightly observed in order dated 5.12.2017 that scope of correction of Jamabandi is subject to the decision of Title Suit No.150 of 2009, pending before the competent Civil Court.

5. It is well settled that creation or cancellation of jamabandi neither create nor extinguishes right and title of any person. Besides this, order of the BLT has rightly considered the fact that when the title suits are pending before the Civil Court, action of the Circle Officer, Chainpur and the DCLR, Bhabua allowing the mutation case in favour of the petitioner of that case, is illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. Parties before the BLT as well as land in dispute are common in the title suits. Absence of section 6(12) of the Act will have no bearing in the present case. Admittedly, title suit is pending between the parties with regard to the same land where right, title and possession are to be adjudicated.

Patna High Court CWJC No.8416 of 2021(3) dt.11-01-2024 3/3

6. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and rival contentions of the parties, I am of the definite opinion that the learned Tribunal has committed no error in passing the impugned order. The findings recorded by the tribunal does not suffer from any fallacy.

7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi U