Dinesh Mehta And Ors vs Raghunath Yadav And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AC to SC 25 for the State.

The petitioners have moved the Court for the following reliefs:

"1. That this is an application praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to set aside the impugned order dated 11.06.2019 passed by the learned Collector, Supaul in Mutation Cancellation and Rent Fixation Appeal No. 218/2012, as well as the order dated 25.08.2012 passed by the learned Sub-Division Officer, Triveniganj, Supaul in Mutation Cancellation and Rent Fixation Case No. 03/06, whereby the petitioners' application for cancellation of fraudulently created jamabandi has been rejected on non-est and erroneous grounds.

The petitioner further prays for a consequent writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction upon the respondent authorities to mutate the subject land in the name of the petitioners after cancelling the jamabandis in question and, further, fix the rent of the subject land.

The petitioner further prays for issuance of any other appropriate writ/direction/order in the facts of the case to ensure timely and effective consequential benefits/relief to the petitioner.

That, briefly stated, the present writ application if founded on the grounds that the land in question belonged the ancestors of the petitioners as would be evident from the old survey khatiyan. However, with malafide intent, the respondent 1st and 2nd set have illegally got jamabandis created in their name with respect to the land in question. The petitioners have failed to submit any documentary proof by which they allegedly came in possession of the subject land and, despite a report from the Circle Officer Supporting the case of the petitioners, the learned Courts below have dismissed the plea of the petitioners on non-est and Misconceived grounds."

After some arguments, learned counsel for the State pointed out to the fact that the petitioners had challenged the order of mutation passed in favour of the private respondents of the year 1967 in the year 2006 i.e., after 39 years. It was submitted that a Bench of this Court in Vijay Kumar Prasad vs. State of Bihar reported as 2017(1) PLJR 818, has held that an order of Jamabandi cannot be challenged after several decades but in case it was created fraudulently, the same has to be proved before a Court of competent jurisdiction and the same should not be done in a summary manner, by the revenue authorities.

Having regard to the aforesaid and taking into account the admitted position that the Jamabandi in favour of the private respondents created in the year 1967 was for the first time challenged in the year 2006, i.e., after 39 years, no relief can be granted to the petitioners by the authorities and the present forum is also not appropriate for the same and, thus, challenge to the same would have to be made before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed off with the observations aforesaid.