Subhash Singh & Anr. vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Date : 07-08-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioners are the owners of land pertaining to Khata number 11, Plot number 168, comprising an area of 1.29 acres, situated at Mauza Phulwariya, Anchal Khusrupur, District Patna. The petitioners have inherited the aforesaid land through the original ancestors, Late Dukhan Singh and are in continuous physical possession over the said land from generations without any hindrance.

It is the further case of the petitioners that, after the death of Janki Kuar, they inherited the disputed land by way of succession. Consequently, the petitioners filed Mutation Case No. 1127 of 2013–14 before the Circle Officer, Khusrupur, seeking mutation of their names in the Government records (Sarishta) in respect of the disputed land.

Upon receipt of the said application, the Circle Officer, respondent no. 5, called for an enquiry report from the Circle Inspector regarding the status, possession, and ownership of the disputed land.

In compliance thereof, the Circle Inspector conducted the enquiry and submitted his report, recording a finding that the petitioners were in physical possession of the disputed land, having succeeded the same from their ancestors and that they were the Khatiyani Raiyats of the land in question. Thereafter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and upon due consideration of the enquiry report and the materials available on record, the Circle Officer, by order dated 12.02.2014, allowed Mutation Case No. 1127 of 2013–14 and directed mutation of the names of the petitioners in the government records in respect of the disputed land.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the private respondents challenged the order dated 12.02.2014 passed by the Circle Officer by filing Mutation Appeal No. 13 of 2016–17 before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR), Patna and after issuing notice to the parties and hearing them, the learned DCLR, upon consideration of the records and documents, dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants/respondents had failed to make out any case for interference and affirmed the order of the Circle Officer.

It is the further case of the petitioners that respondent nos. 6 to 11 preferred Mutation Revision No. 56 of 2016–17 before the Collector, Patna, against the order of the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms. The Additional Collector, Patna, by order dated 25.07.2017, allowed the revision and set aside the orders passed by the Circle Officer and the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms.

The Petitioners being aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector, preferred BLT Case No. 145 of 2020 before the Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna, which, after hearing the parties, was dismissed by order dated 19.05.2022.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the inquiry report of the Anchal Inspector unequivocally records that the petitioners are the successors of the Khatiyani Raiyats, are the rightful owners of the disputed land and are in continuous possession thereof. It has further been submitted that the petitioners have been regularly paying rent to the State of Bihar, and the land stands recorded in their names in the revenue records. It has next been submitted that the respondent nos. 6 to 11 have no right, title or interest over the disputed land and are asserting their claim on the basis of false and fabricated sale deeds, which were never executed by the Khatiyani Raiyats.

Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that the petitioners have remained in continuous possession of the disputed land, as it is evident from the inquiry report as well as the mutation order, which was passed without any objection from any claimant. It has further been submitted that the genealogical table produced by the petitioners establishes that their forefather, Shivraj Singh, son of Dukhan Singh, was the Khatiyani Raiyat of the land in question. The said fact is also borne out from the relevant Khatiyan pertaining to Khesra No. 168, Thana No. 124, Pargana Baikatpur, Touzi No. 881.

Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that the learned Additional Collector failed to appreciate that the petitioners are the only descendants of the Khatiyani Raiyat, Late Dukhan Singh and that the inquiry report categorically found them to be in possession of the land in question. It has further been submitted that the learned Additional Collector also failed to consider the settled legal position that the entries in the Khatiyan carry a presumption of correctness and constitute strong evidence of title unless rebutted in accordance with the law.

It has next been submitted that the learned Additional Collector has erroneously held that there is a discrepancy between the genealogical table furnished by the writ petitioners in the mutation proceeding and the one produced in Partition Suit No. 20 of 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said partition suit was instituted by the writ petitioners against other members of their family, and the only variation between the two genealogical tables is that, in the mutation proceeding, Late Balki Kuar has been shown as having only one daughter, namely Janki Kuar, whereas in the partition suit another daughter was also shown, who had admittedly died issueless. It is contended that such variation has no bearing whatsoever on the mutation proceeding and does not affect the succession claimed by the petitioners. The learned Additional Collector, however, misconceived the said variation and wrongly inferred that the genealogical table produced by the petitioners was fabricated and on such suspicion alone, proceeded to allow the revision application by holding that the petitioners had projected false documents before the authority concerned.

Learned A.C. to S.C.-19 appearing on behalf of the the respondent-State submits that the Additional Collector, Patna, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties and considering the materials available on record, rightly concluded that the Circle Officer, Khusrupur, had failed to follow the prescribed procedure and had not properly verified the vanshawali (genealogical table). According to the respondents, the genealogy relied upon by the petitioners appears to be suspicious inasmuch as, in Title Partition Suit No. 20 of 2005, the disputed land has also been included along with other properties. It has been contended that, in the said suit filed by Subhash Kumar Singh, Balki Kuar has been shown to have one son, namely Mathura Singh, and two daughters, namely Paro Kuar and Janki Kuar.

It has further been submitted that the mutation order was passed merely on the basis of the khatiyan while completely overlooking the fact that a Jamabandi had already been created in the names of different persons with respect to the land in question. It has also been contended that the land in dispute had been sold to Devilal Chaudhary by a registered sale deed dated 26.04.1922. Thereafter, upon the death of Devilal Chaudhary, Jamabandi No. 1/69 was created in the names of Ramchandra Jaiswal and Ram Kumar Chaudhary, which is duly reflected from the revenue receipts for the year 1983–84.

The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the order passed by the Additional Collector was assailed before the Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna, by filing BLT Case No. 145 of 2020 and the same was also dismissed affirming the order of Additional Collector. It has thus been submitted that the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and is fit to be dismissed.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties as also upon perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court finds that the primary dispute being raised by the petitioners is that they being the successor of the land in question were entitled for mutation entries in their favour and which was rightly allowed earlier by the Circle Officer and DCLR, however, the Additional Collector and BLT, Patna erred in discussing their claim.

From the facts emerging out from the recital of the pleadings and various orders including the impugned orders, this Court finds that rightly or wrongly a Jamabandi was created in the name of Devilal Choudhary, on the basis of a sale deed executed way back on 26.04.1922. Several other Jawabandi's were created on account of sale deeds executed by the said Devidal Choudhary in favour of others.

The creation of Jambandi in favour of the petitioners in Mutation Case No. 1127 of 2013-14 has been done without acknowledging the aforesaid Jamabandi created in the name of private respondents and thus no opportunity of hearing was given to them.

In background of such facts, i.e., existence of a sale deed executed in the year 1922 by one Chhoharo Kuer, which the petitioners say was an outsider, and subsequent Jamabandi having being created in the names of private respondents, the recourse available to the petitioners was of challenging the same before a competent court of civil jurisdiction and not going for mutation entries.

One question which remained unanswered by the petitioners was that if they were the successors of the land in question, what took them so long to apply for mutation in their favour.

The report submitted by the Circle Inspector does not talk about any Jamabandi having being created earlier with respect to the land in question, giving a passage for passing orders of mutation in favour of the petitioners.

As soon as the petitioners raise the question of wrongful claim of right and title by the private respondents, over the land in question and their claim of purchasing from the descendants of original landlord, such claim can only be adjudicated by competent civil Court, as even the genealogical table is disputed.

It is a settled law that Mutation entries do not confer title. As also the law that long long standing Jamabandi cannot be disturbed in another summary proceedings like a mutation case.

This Court, without going into the legality of the claim of right and title between the parties and also the question of possession, holds that there is no illegality in the impugned orders and as such it does not require any interference.

The writ application is dismissed.