Prem Kumar vs The State of Bihar
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7890 of 2024
CNR No. BRHC010408902024
======================================================
Prem Kumar son of Sri Kaushal Kumar Resident of village Kaswan P.S.
Parasbigha Block Cum Circle Ratni Faridpur, District Jehanabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. The District Magistrate, Jehanabad
3. The Additional Collector, Jehanabad
4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Jehanabad
5. The Circle Officer, Ratni Faridpur Circle, District- Jehanabad
6. Kaushal Kumar son of Late Parshuram Sharma Resident of Village Kaswan,
P.S. Parasbigha, District Jehanabad
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Harsh Anuj, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Kamlesh Kumar, GP-28
Mr.Arun Kumar, AC to GP-28
For the Pvt. Respondent : Mr.Ratnakar Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 26-10-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent no. 6.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s),
order(s) or direction(s) for quashing of the order
dated 29.02.2024 passed in Mutation Appeal
Case No. 01/2023-24, since the Mutation Appeal
filed by the Respondent No. 5 is not
maintainable on account of the fact that the
Respondent No. 5 has no locus to file such
Patna High Court CWJC No.7890 of 2024 dt.26-10-2026
2/9
Appeal under the provisions of Bihar Mutation
Act, 2011? The order passed by the Respondent
No. 4 is without jurisdiction since once the
Jamabandi has been created in favour of the
petitioner the power for cancellation of
Jamabandi is vested with the Respondent No. 3
so the order dated 29.02.2024 is contrary to
Laws?
(ii) Further direct the Respondent no. 5 to cancel
and restore the present Jamabandi of the
petitioner for the said land.”
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is the only son of his father. Since the father of the
petitioner is an old person, with consent of the petitioner, an
affidavit was sworn by his father on 01.02.2023 whereby it was
declared that the ancestral land having demand no. 695 WP
1/4
139/05 having an area of 01-09 Acre situated in Thana No. 42,
Ratni Faridpur Anchal, Jehanabad be opened in the name of the
petitioner. The property in question along with other properties
came in the share of the father of the petitioner, therefore,
Jamabandi No. 695 was opened in the name of the father of the
petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner filed an
application before the Circle Officer, Ratni Faridpur for
mutation of the land mentioned in paragraph no. 9 of the writ
petition and accordingly, after issuance of notice to the
concerned parties, Mutation Case No. 2410/R27/2022-23 was
initiated and subsequently, the land mentioned in paragraph no.
9 was mutated in the name of the petitioner and Jamabandi was
Patna High Court CWJC No.7890 of 2024 dt.26-10-2026
3/9
created in his name. The petitioner came to know that at the
instigation of the agnates of his father, an application was filed
before the Circle Officer, Ratni Faridpur Anchal, Jehanabad for
cancellation of Jamabandi created in favour of the petitioner.
Thereafter, the matter was sent by the Circle Officer vide letter
no. 382 dated 01.04.2023 to the D.C.L.R., Jehanabad with a
request/information that on the basis of the wrong facts and
evidences, the petitioner has procured Jamabandi in his favour,
therefore, the same may be cancelled.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
on the basis of the letter dated 01.04.2023 issued by the Circle
Officer, Ratni Faridpur, the D.C.L.R., Jehanabad initiated an
appeal bearing Mutation Appeal Case No. 01/2023-24 and by
order dated 29.02.2024 the mutation done in favour of the
petitioner vide Mutation Case No. 2410/R27/2022-23, was
cancelled.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the D.C.L.R., Jehanabad without any authority of law has
proceeded to cancel the Jamabandi, created in favour of the
petitioner by the Circle Officer, Ratni Faridpur. He submits that
if Respondent no. 6 was aggrieved with the creation of
Jamabandi for the lands mentioned in paragraph no. 9 of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7890 of 2024 dt.26-10-2026
4/9
writ petition, he should have filed an appeal before the D.C.L.R.
for cancellation of Jamabandi, which was created in favour of
the petitioner, however, in the present case, no such appeal has
been preferred by the respondent no. 6 and on his application,
the Circle Officer, Ratni Faridpur sent a letter to the D.C.L.R.,
Jehanabad, who on the basis of the letter submitted by the Circle
Officer, Ratni Faridpur, initiated an appeal proceeding and went
on to cancel the jamabandi, which was created in the name of
the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the D.C.L.R., Jehanabad by exceeding his jurisdiction has
passed the impugned order dated 29.02.2024, since there is no
such provision in the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 on which
basis, the D.C.L.R., Jehanabad has proceeded to cancel the
Jamabandi of the petitioner. He further submits that as per the
provisions contained in Rule 11 of the Bihar Mutation Rules,
2012, an aggrieved person has every right to file an appeal
against the order passed by the Circle Officer, who in the
present case is the Circle Officer, Ratni Faridpur, Jehanabad,
however, in the present case, no such appeal has been preferred
by the aggrieved person i.e. Respondent no. 6 herein. In the
present case, the Circle Officer himself has become an
Patna High Court CWJC No.7890 of 2024 dt.26-10-2026
5/9
aggrieved person and has submitted an application before the
D.C.L.R., Jehanabad and on his application an appeal case was
instituted and the order passed by the Circle Officer, Ratni
Faridpur in Mutation Case No. 2410/R27/2022-23, has been set
aside.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the order passed by the D.C.L.R., Jehanabad is without
jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside, in view of the
provisions, contained in the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011.
8. Per contra , the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the Respondent no. 6, while referring to the counter affidavit
filed on his behalf submits that the petitioner, who is the son of
Respondent no. 6, by committing forgery upon the revenue
authorities and producing a forged affidavit which was not in his
signature, has obtained mutation order in his favour vide
Mutation Case No. 2410/R27/2022-23. He submits that on the
basis of mutation in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner
started selling/transferring the part of the lands mentioned in
paragraph no. 9 of the writ petition, in favour of the third parties
and when the Respondent no. 6 came to know about the fraud
committed by the petitioner, he filed a Criminal Case bearing
Parasbigha P.S. Case No. 07 of 2024 on 21.02.2024 under
Patna High Court CWJC No.7890 of 2024 dt.26-10-2026
6/9
different sections of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner
and his wife. He filed an application under Section 9 of the
Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 before the competent authority
for the correction/cancellation of the fraudulent mutation done
in favour of the petitioner. He submits that there is no infirmity
or illegality in the order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the
D.C.L.R., Jehanabad in Mutation Appeal Case No. 01/2023-24,
since Respondent no. 6 has made a complaint before the Circle
Officer, Ratni Faridpur and on his request a letter was forwarded
to the D.C.L.R., Jehanabad, who in turn, initiated the appeal
bearing Mutation Appeal Case No. 01/2023-24 and passed the
order dated 29.02.2024 whereby he set aside the order of the
Circle Officer, Ratni Faridpur, Jehanabad passed in Mutation
Case No. 2410/R27/2022-23. He submits that the writ petition
itself is not maintainable as the petitioner has bypassed the
statutory remedy available to him under the Bihar Land
Mutation Act, 2011 and the rules framed thereunder, since the
appeal against the order of the Circle Officer has to be filed
before the D.C.L.R., within thirty days in terms of Rule 11 of
the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011. The revision against the
order of the D.C.L.R. has to be filed before the
Collector/Additional Collector/Additional/District Magistrate
Patna High Court CWJC No.7890 of 2024 dt.26-10-2026
7/9
within thirty days as per the Bihar land Mutation Act, 2011 and
to the Bihar Land Tribunal under the Bihar Land Dispute
Resolution Act, 2009, against any order passed in revision. In
the present case, the petitioner without availing any remedy
approached this Court by filing the writ petition. He submits
that although in the counter affidavit, it has not been mentioned,
however, he has been informed that a title suit in between the
petitioner and Respondent no. 6 is pending before the Court of
learned Sub-Judge, Jehanabad.
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
State also submits that the order passed by the D.C.L.R.,
Jehanabad dated 29.02.2024 is in accordance with law and there
is no infirmity in the said order whereby he has cancelled/set
aside the order passed by the Circle Officer, Ratni Faridpur,
Jehanabad in Mutation Case No. 2410/R27/2022-23.
10. Having considered the rival submissions and after
going through the records, it appears that pursuant to an
application submitted by the petitioner, Mutation Case No.
2410/R27/2022-23 was initiated for creating Jamabandi in
favour of the petitioner for the lands mentioned in paragraph no.
9. Subsequently, Respondent no. 6 filed a complaint before the
Circle Officer, Ratni Faridpur, Jehanabad and the Circle Officer,
Patna High Court CWJC No.7890 of 2024 dt.26-10-2026
8/9
upon receipt of the complaint from Respondent no. 6, by the
letter no. 382 dated 01.04.2023 addressed to the D.C.L.R.,
Jehanabad, requested for cancellation of the order passed by the
Circle Officer, Ratni Faridpur in Mutation Case No.
2410/R27/2022-23. On the basis of the said letter dated
01.04.2023, the D.C.L.R., Jehanabad initiated Mutation Appeal
Case No. 01/2023-24 (Circle Officer, Ratni Faridpur vs.
Kaushal Kumar/Prem Kumar) . The D.C.L.R., Jehanabad by
order dated 29.02.2024, proceeded to set aside the order passed
by the Circle Officer, Ratni Faridpur, Jehanabad, in Mutation
Case No. 2410/R27/2022-23.
11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order
passed by the D.C.L.R., Jehanabad is without jurisdiction, since
there was no occasion for him to act upon the letter written by
the Circle Officer on 01.04.2023, since there is no provision in
the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011, giving any authority to the
Circle Officer to file an appeal against his own order before the
D.C.L.R. Jehanabad. In the present case, the same has been
done by the Circle Officer, Ratni Faridpur, Jehanabad, who
himself recommended for cancellation of his own order passed
in Mutation Case No. 2410/R27/2022-23. In the opinion of this
Court, if Respondent no. 6 was aggrieved with the order passed
Patna High Court CWJC No.7890 of 2024 dt.26-10-2026
9/9
by the Circle Officer, Ratni Faridpur, Jehanabad in Mutation
Case No. 2410/R27/2022-23, he was required to file an appeal
in terms of Rule 11 of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011/Rules
2012. Instead of filing an appeal in terms of Rule 11, he
submitted an application before the Circle Officer, Ratni
Faridpur, who in turn sent his recommendation on 01.04.2023
before the D.C.L.R., Jehanabad for cancelling/setting aside the
orders passed in Mutation Case No. 2410/R27/2022-23 and on
his application, the D.C.L.R. proceeded to set aside the order
passed by the Circle Officer, Ratni Faridpur, Jehanabad in
Mutation Case No. 2410/R27/2022-23.
12. From the consideration made above, this Court is
of the opinion that the order passed by the D.C.L.R., Jehanabad
in Mutation Appeal Case No. 01/2023-24 dated 29.02.2024
deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.
13. The writ petition is allowed.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall also disposed
of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
vinita/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 28.10.2026
Transmission Date