← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/12588/2016allowed

Lallan Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-06-28Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12588 of 2016 ======================================================

1. Kusum Devi

2. Sachin Kumar

3. Arti kumari

4. Sonam Kumari .... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms, Bihar Patna

3. The D. M.-cum-Collector, Patna

4. The D.C.L.R., Danapur, Patna

5. The Circle Officer, Danapur Circle, Patna

6. Smt. Kunti Devi wife of Ram Pravesh Singh .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajeev Shekhar, advocate For the State : Mr. AC to GP 1 For the respondent No.6 :M/s S. K. Verma & Jai Vardhan Narayan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 28-06-2018 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to withdraw I.A. No. 6033 of 2017.

Learned counsel for the respondent did not oppose the prayer for withdrawal of I.A. No. 6033 of 2017. Accordingly I.A. No. 6033 of 2017 is dismissed as withdrawn.

Heard both sides on I.A. No. 3057 of 2018.

This I.A. has been filed on behalf of the legal heirs of the original petitioner Lallan Singh and to substitute them as petitioners in this writ petition. Lallan Singh Died on 11.12.2016 leaving behind his wife, son and two daughters, fully described in paragraph 2 of the I.A.

The learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 submits

2/4 that since this petition is filed under chapter 21C of the Patna High Court for substituting legal heirs of the petitioner who died in the year 2016 and there is inordinate delay, therefore, the substitution petition should not be allowed.

I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 in a writ petition in which there is no period of limitation for substituting legal heirs of petitioner.

Accordingly the I.A. No. 3057 of 2018 is allowed. Let the name of Lallan Singh be expunged and in his place the names of his legal heirs and representatives be substituted, who have already appeared by filing of Vakalatnama. C.W.J.C. No. 12588 of 2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent No.6.

The petitioners have filed this writ petition to quash the order dated08.04.2016 passed by Circle Officer, Danapur in Misc. case No. 38/15-16.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Late Lallan Singh and respondent No.6 are brother and sister. Jamabandi was opened in the name of Lalan Singh. His sister Kunti Devi filed petition for mutating her name in the record of rights but the Circle Officer, Danapur vide order dated 18.03.2016 rejected the petition for mutating her name. Kunti Devi did not file any petition as provided under Bihar Mutation Law, 2011 but she again filed a petition before the Circle Officer upon which the Circle Officer ordered for mutating the name of Kunti Devi along with Lallan Singh in the record of rights with regard to the lands

3/4 standing in the name of Lallan Singh. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no provision in the Bihar Mutation Law, 2011 showing that the Circle Officer has got any power to reviews his own order.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it is stated that the Circle Officer has committed illegality and no notice was ever issued to Lallan Singh in whose name Jamabandi was standing.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.6 submits that admittedly respondent No.6 is own sister of Lallan Singh and she is entitled to get 1⁄2 share in the ancestral property but he could not be able to show any provision from the Bihar Mutation Law, 2011 that the Circle Officer has got any power to review his own order.

It is admitted fact that the lands were standing in the name of Lallan Singh. Earlier the lands were standing in the name of Shyam Narayan Singh, father of Lallan Singh, and after death of Shyam Narayan Singh Jamabandi was opened in the name of Lallan Singh. Kunti Devi filed petition for mutating her name also along with Lallan Singh but her petition was dismissed on 18.03.2016. Again Kunti Devi filed petition and on such the Circle Officer vide order dated 08.04.2016 ordered to open Jamabandi in the name of Kunti Devi inserting her name also in Jamabandi No. 372 on the ground that she is sister of Lallan Singh and, as, she got 1⁄2 share in view of provision as contained in Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

For the purpose of mutation whether sister of Lallan Singh inherited property cannot be looked into. The Circle Officer has got no jurisdiction to review his own order dated 18.03.2016

4/4 by the impugned order dated 08.04.2016. Therefore, I find that the order dated 08.04.2016 passed by the Circle Officer, Danapur in Misc. case No. 38/15-16 is without jurisdiction and the same is set aside. This writ petition is allowed.

The respondent No.6 may take recourse to other appropriate remedy, in accordance with law.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U