Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.179 of 2026
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1582 of 2026
CNR No. BRHC010237252026
======================================================
1. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Son of Shyam Sunder Agarwal, resident of
Loharpatti Road, P.S. Kishanganj, District- Kishanganj.
2. Manish Kumar Jalan, Son of Gauri Shankar Jalan, resident of Gandhi
Chowk, P.O., P.S. and District- Kishanganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Revenue/Land Reforms, Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Kishanganj.
3. The Additional Collector, Kishanganj.
4. The Deputy Collector of Land Reforms, Kishanganj.
5. The Sub-divisional Officer, Kishanganj.
6. The Circle Officer, Kishanganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Nihal Beg, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Neeraj Raj, AC to AAG-7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 26-10-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present intra court appeal has been preferred
against the order dated 03.02.2026 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1582
of 2026, whereby the writ petition preferred by the writ-
petitioners (appellants herein) came to be dismissed.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.179 of 2026 dt.26-10-2026
2/17
3. The dispute in the present case relates to the
cancellation of Parcha and jamabandi in respect of land
appertaining to Mauza Simalbari, Thana No. 25, District
Kishanganj. The land measuring 7.32 acres was settled by the
Revenue Authority vide Case No. 21 of 1976-77 in the joint
names of four persons, namely, Israr Hussain, Girbuddin, Md.
Idris and Bibi Aysha Khatoon, in equal shares. Upon the death
of Bibi Aysha Khatoon in the year 1980, her legal heirs, namely,
Md. Aslam, Md. Akmal, Kuresha Khatoon and Gulfan Nisha,
inherited her share measuring 1.83 acres, comprising the land
appertaining to Khata No. 70 and the relevant Khesra numbers.
The legal heirs subsequently transferred the said land to the writ
petitioners through a registered sale deed dated 07.11.2009.
Thereafter, the names of the writ petitioners were mutated in the
revenue records, and they claim to have remained in possession
of the land and to have regularly paid rent to the revenue
authorities.
4. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated for
cancellation of the Parcha, culminating in the order dated
15.06.2021 passed by the Collector, Kishanganj, in Parcha
Cancellation Case No. 62 of 2018-19, whereby the Parcha
granted in favour of the original settlers and the consequential

Patna High Court L.P.A No.179 of 2026 dt.26-10-2026
3/17
jamabandi standing in the names of the writ petitioners were
cancelled.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed C.W.J.C.
No. 1582 of 2026 before this Court, which came to be dismissed
by the learned Single Judge by order dated 03.02.2026. The
operative portion of the said order reads as follows:
“7. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action
of the Circle Officer and the District Magistrate-
cum-Collector, who have refused to mutate the
land purchased by them vide registered Sale
Deed No. 7256 dated 07.11.2009 in respect of
the land appertaining to Khata No. 70
comprising Khesra Nos. 393, 394, 609, 608, 611,
614, 602, 606, 604 (Area 1 acre 26 decimals)
and Khesra Nos. 616, 588, 586, 591, 592, 594
(Area 57 decimals). It is admitted that the vendor
of the petitioners is the descendant of the
original settlee Late Adso Khatoon/Ayesha
Khatoon, who was landless at the time. The land
in dispute was settled vide settlement Case No.
21/1976-77. The petitioners have handed over to
this Court a xerox copy of page no. 82 of
Bandobasti Panji in respect of the year 1976 of
the District Kishanganj. From the said xerox
copy, it appears that the land was donated by a
Jamindar, namely, Naimuddin son of Jalalaudin,
resident of Simbalbadi, Kishanganj, which is
referred in S.O. No. 1091 dated 01.09.1976, but
the same has not been brought on record.
8. The question, which requires to be decided in
the present writ petition is, as to whether, the
vendor of the petitioners was having statutory
right to transfer the land, which was settled in
the name of his ancestor, who was landless,
pursuant to Settlement Case No. 21/1976-77.
9. Before answering the said question, I find it
relevant to give the three primary legislative

Patna High Court L.P.A No.179 of 2026 dt.26-10-2026
4/17
acts, which govern the distribution and
protection of land of the landless persons.
(I) Section 9 of the Bihar Privileged Persons
Homestead Tenancy Act,1947:
" 9. Restriction on transfer of privileged
tenant's right.
- No transfer made by a privileged tenant of his
right in his holding or in any portion thereof, by
private sale, gift, will, mortgage, lease or any
contract or agreement shall be valid to any extent
except as provided in Sections 10 to 17."
(II) Section 14 of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna
Act,1954
"14. Grant of land to landless persons .
(1)The Committee or such other authority or
person, as the Committee may specify, either
generally or in respect of any local area, in the
prescribed manner, may, [subject to sub-section
(2)] [Inserted by Act 14 of 1965.] grant lands
which have vested in the Committee to landless
persons [or to a village Community, Gram
Panchayat, or a Co-operative Society] [Inserted
by Bihar Act No. 15 of 1959.] organised by the
Committee] and the grantee of the land shall
acquire the same right, title and interest as the
donor had in such land:Provided that-
(i)in case the donor's interest in such land was
that of a proprietor or tenure-holder as defined in
the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Bihar Act
XXX of 1950), the grantee's right, title and
interest shall be that of an occupancy raiyat liable
to pay rent to the State Government;
(ii)in case the estate or tenure, as the case may be
in which such land is situated has vested in the
State under the said Act, the right, title and
interest of the grantee shall also be subject to the
provisions of that Act; and
(iii)in case such land has vested in the Committee
under Section 12, the right, title and interest of the
grantee shall be that of an occupancy raiyat
liable to pay rent to the State Government;
Provided further that-
(i)[grantee, his heirs, assigns or successor-in-
interest shall not be competent to sublet or
transfer the land or any portion thereof by sale,

Patna High Court L.P.A No.179 of 2026 dt.26-10-2026
5/17
gift or otherwise, but shall be competent to
transfer the same by exchange with the previous
permission of the Committee in writing ; and
[Substituted by Bihar Act No. 15 of 1959.]
(ii)the rights of the grantee over such land shall
be subject to such other restrictions and
conditions as may be prescribed1 [by the
Committee],
[Provided also that the grantee, his heirs,
assignee, or successors-in-interest may enter into
a simple mortgage for raising loan for
agricultural purposes in respect of land with a
bank or society registered or deemed to be
registered under the Bihar Co-operative Societies
Act, 1935 (Bihar and Orissa Act VI of 1935) or
with the State Bank of India or a bank specified in
column 2 of the First Schedule to the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of
Undertakings) Act, 1970 (Act V of 1970) or with a
company or a corporation owned by or in which
not less than fifty-one percent of the share capital
is held by the State Government or the Central
Government or partly by the State Government
and partly by the Central Government and which
has been set up for raising loan for agricultural
purposes] [Added by Act 8 of 1981.].
(2) All grants shall be made as far as may be in
accordance with the scheme of Bhoodan Yagna as
may be prescribed;[Provided that in making
grants of waste lands in the districts of Santhal
Parganas which have vested in the Committee the
principle prescribed for settlement of waste lands
under Section 2.8 of the Santhal Parganas
Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949
(Bihar Act XIV of 1949), shall be followed.]
[Inserted by Bihar Act 14 of 1965, Section 9.]
(2)For the purpose of grant of lands under this
section, the Committee may, by regulations, fix
after taking into consideration the quality of
lands, the maximum and minimum areas to be
granted to a landless person [or to a village
community, Gram Panchayat or a co-operative
society organised by the Committee] [Inserted by
Bihar Act 14 of 1965, Section 9.] and different
areas may be fixed for different districts, sub-
divisions or thanas. Explanation. - For the
purposes of this section, means a raiyat having a
right of occupancy in the land held by him [within
the meaning of the tenancy law of the area in

Patna High Court L.P.A No.179 of 2026 dt.26-10-2026
6/17
which it is situated].
(III) Sub-Section 3 of Section 27 of the Bihar
Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and
Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961
"Section 27(3)- [ The land settled by the
Collector under sub-section (1) shall be heritable
but shall not be transferable:
Provided that the settlee may enter into a simple
mortgage in respect of the land with a society or
bank registered or deemed to be registered under
the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act,
1935 (B & O Act VI of 1935) or with the State
Bank of India or a bank specified in Column 2 of
the First Schedule to the Banking Companies
(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,
1970 (Act 5 of 1970) or with a Company or a
Corporation owned by or in which not less than
fifty-one percent of share capital is held by the
State Government or the Central Government or
partly by the State Government and partly by the
Central Government, for raising loan for
agricultural purposes.] [Sub-section (3) omitted
and sub-section (4) re-numbered as sub-section
(3) by Act 55 of 1982.]"
10. From the perusal of the provision of all the
different acts, which grant privileged
tenant/landless, a permanent tenancy right in the
homestead land, but the provisions of the Acts
restrain privileged persons from transferring the
land as per Section 9 of the Act, 1947 in respect
of those landless persons, who have been
granted land as per the Bhudan Yojana
Committee, Section 14 of the Act, 1954 or in
respect of settlement of surplus in accordance
with Sub-Section 3 of Section 27 of the Act, 1961
having settled to a landless person, however, it is
inheritable.
11. The petitioners in support of their claim have
relied on the judgment dated 10.04.2024 passed
by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Ramowtar Lakhotia (Supra) . I find it relevant to
produce paragraphs no. 16 to 20, which are as
under:
"16. The Bihar Land Mutation, Act 2011 has been
incorporated to provide for regulating the process
of mutation of land and making it concomitant
with the needs of the present times. Section 2 (1)

Patna High Court L.P.A No.179 of 2026 dt.26-10-2026
7/17
defines “Mutation” as alteration in the entries in
the Continuous Khatian, Tenants’ Ledger and
Khesra Register on account of transfer of right of
a person in a holding or a part thereof by way of
any of the means/instruments mentioned therein
from clause (a) to (p). Sub-section (2) describes
“Record of Rights” as the latest Record of Rights
as finally published under Chapter X of the Bihar
Tenancy Act, 1885. Sub-section (22) speaks of
Mutation Petition Register and sub-section (23)
talks about Mutation Register, wherein the
petitions filed before the Circle Officer and the
orders passed therein are entered as registered.
Sub-section (26) defines “Jamabandi”, which
reads as follows:
“(26) “Jamabandi” means a number showing the
page allotted to all tenants in Tenants Ledger
Register where entries of details of their tenancies
as well as demand and collection of rent and cess
are made.”
17. Now, coming to impugned Section 9 (i) which
talks about Cancellation of Jamabandi, it would
be apposite to quote hereunder:
“9 (i) Cancellation of Jamabandi .- The Additional
Collector, either suo motu or on an application,
shall have the power to make inquiries in respect of
any Jamabandi, which has been created in
violation of any law for the time being in force or
in contravention of any executive instruction issued
in this behalf. The Additional Collector, in whose
jurisdiction the land is situated, may, after giving
reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to
appear, adduce evidence and be heard, cancel such
Jamabandi, dispossess the person claiming under it
and deliver the possession to the legitimate
owner/custodian, on such terms as may appear to
the Additional Collector to be fair and equitable.”
[portion underlined by us is the subject of
challenge]
18. All proceedings under the Act are to be
summary in nature, as per Section 11 of the Act,
2011. The Collector, Additional Collector, the
Land Reforms Deputy Collector and the Circle
Officer under this Act shall have the same powers
in admission of evidence, making enquiries,
summoning and enforcing the attendance of any
person and examining him on oath, compelling
the production of documents and award of costs
as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 as per Section 16. Section 21
says that the provisions of this Act shall be in

Patna High Court L.P.A No.179 of 2026 dt.26-10-2026
8/17
addition to and not in derogation of any of the
provisions contained in other laws. Lastly, the
power of the Government to make Rules, is
prescribed under Section 22 of the Act, 2011.
19. Now, we come to Bihar Mutation Rules, 2012,
framed by the State Government in exercise of the
powers conferred under Section 22 of the Act,
2011. Rule 13 deals with the cancellation of
Jamabandi and sub Rule (11) and (12) of Rule 13
which are impugned herein, empowers the
Additional Collector to dispossess a person whose
Jamabandi has been cancelled and put in
possession, of the person, whose claim appears to
be legitimate on terms as deemed fair and
equitable. If it is not possible without the use of
force, the Additional Collector could ensure the
same by deputation of Magistrate and direct
Deputy Superintendent of Police for deputation of
police officer with adequate force for
dispossessing persons claiming under the
cancelled Jamabandi and restore the possession
of legitimate owner/custodian of the land.
20. Having noted all the relevant provisions, now
coming to mutation and Jamabandi and its effect,
it is needless to observe as mandated by the
decisions of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme
Court; mutation of land in the revenue records,
only enables the person in whose favour, mutation
is ordered to pay the land revenue, in question.
Undoubtedly, the entries in the revenue record
does not create any title in respect of the land in
dispute. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has
consistently held that mutation of land in the
revenue records does not create or extinguish the
title over such land nor has it any presumptive
value on the title.[Vide Sawarni Vs. Inder Kaur
reported in 1996 (6) SCC 223, Balwant Singh Vs.
Daulat Singh reported in 1997 (7) SCC 137 and
Narasamma & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka &
Ors. reported in 2009 (5) SCC 591]."
12. The Division Bench has finally concluded in
paragraphs no. 48 and 49 as under:
"48. In the aforesaid premise of settled legal
position that mutation/Jamabandi enabling a
person in whose favour order of
mutation/Jamabandi is passed to only pay land
revenue of the land in question, the
restoration/delivery of possession by holding or
treating that person as legitimate
owner/custodian of the land basing upon

Patna High Court L.P.A No.179 of 2026 dt.26-10-2026
9/17
Jamabandi alone, would in the opinion of this
Court be ultra vires Articles 300A and 21 of the
Constitution of India. Possession though only a
semblance of title/ownership, that cannot be
interfered with in such a casual and cavalier
manner.
49. In view thereof, this Court would strike down
the impugned Section 9(1) of the Bihar Land
Mutation Act, 2011 to the extent it confers power
upon the Additional Collector “to dispossess the
person whose Jamabandi has been cancelled and
to put in possession the legitimate
owner/custodian on such land on such terms as
may appear to the Additional Collector to be fair
and equitable” and Rules 13(11) and 13(12) of
the Bihar Land Mutation Rules, 2012 for being
ultra vires Article 300A of the Constitution of
India, apart from being beyond the scope & ambit
of Entry 45 of List II of Schedule VII."
13. The facts of the above case is entirely
different from the facts of the present case. In the
case of Ramowtar Lakhotia (Supra) , the
Division Bench of this Court was considering
the validity of provision of Section 9 (1) of the
Act, 2011 in respect of cancellation of
Jamabandi and after proper analysing the law,
the Division Bench struck down the impugned
Section 9 (1) of the Act, 2011 to the extent it
confers power upon the Additional Collector “to
dispossess the person whose Jamabandi has
been cancelled and to put in possession the
legitimate owner/custodian on such land on such
terms as may appear to the Additional Collector
to be fair and equitable” and Rules 13(11) and
13(12) of the Bihar Land Mutation Rules, 2012
for being ultra vires Article 300A of the
Constitution of India, apart from being beyond
the scope & ambit of Entry 45 of List II of
Schedule VII. The land in question related to the
Khatiyani land, which is guided by the law of
inheritance applicable in the case of the persons,
who seeks mutation of the land upon transfer of
the land or inherited the land. In the present
case, the petitioners have purchased the land,
which still remains the government land and the
government has only parted with the
possessionary right by settling it to the landless
person in accordance with the provision of the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.179 of 2026 dt.26-10-2026
10/17
Act applicable in respect of ancestor of vendor of
the petitioner way back in the year 1976-77. All
the above mentioned acts give possessionary
right to be inheritable but restrain the settlee or
his/her successor from transferring the land.
14. The ancestor of the vendor of the petitioner
was landless and the same was settled by the
government in his favour vide Settlement Case
No. 21/1976-77, can not be transferred by way of
executing a registered sale deed, in view of the
provision of Section 9 of the Act, 1947, Section
14 (1)(i)(i) of the Act, 1954 and Section 27(3) of
the Act, 1961. The above provisions of the Acts
prohibit transfer and, therefore, question of
mutation in respect of those lands as per the
provisions of the above mentioned acts, doesn't
arise.
15. In above background of the facts and the
provisions contained in Section Section 9 of the
Act, 1947, Section 14 (1)(i)(i) of the Act, 1954
and Section 27(3) of the Act, 1961, I find the
Sale Deed No. 7256 dated 07.11.2009 is required
to be declared void instrument in accordance
with law. On the basis of said sale deed, the land
was mutated, which is against the authority of
law. I don't find any infirmity either in the
recommendation dated 04.03.2015 by the Circle
Officer or the order dated 01.09.2018 contained
in Memo No. 1042 passed by the Additional
Collector, Kishanganj, who have recommended
for cancellation of Jamabandi. The writ petition
is accordingly dismissed."
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submits that the proceedings for cancellation of settlement were
initiated against the original settlee, Bibi Aysha Khatoon, who
had died in the year 1980, and that such proceedings were void
ab initio and could not be cured by subsequently impleading her
legal heirs. It is further submitted that the land had been
permanently settled in favour of the original settlee in the year

Patna High Court L.P.A No.179 of 2026 dt.26-10-2026
11/17
1976-77, and, upon her death, her legal heirs inherited her share
and transferred the same to the appellants through a registered
sale deed dated 07.11.2009. The appellants’ jamabandi was
thereafter duly opened in the revenue records. Learned counsel
contends that the settlement could not have been cancelled after
several decades, particularly after the death of the original
settlee and the subsequent transfer of the land to the appellants.
It is also submitted that a registered sale deed cannot be
cancelled or declared void in writ proceedings in the absence of
any such relief being sought.
7. Learned counsel further submits that the revenue
authorities lacked jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Bihar
Mutation Act, 2011, to cancel a settlement made in the year
1976, as the Act is prospective in nature. It is argued that the
learned Single Judge has erroneously relied upon the provisions
of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1949,
the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954, and the Bihar Land
Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus
Land) Act, 1961. According to the appellants, any restriction
imposed by an executive instruction or statutory provision could
not continue indefinitely or survive the death of the original
settlee so as to defeat the rights inherited by her legal heirs and

Patna High Court L.P.A No.179 of 2026 dt.26-10-2026
12/17
subsequently acquired by the appellants. Reliance has also been
placed upon the orders dated 10.04.2024 passed in C.W.J.C. No.
16494 of 2018. On these grounds, learned counsel submits that
the impugned judgment is unsustainable in law and is liable to
be set aside.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that
no interference is warranted with the order passed by the learned
Single Judge, as upon consideration of the materials available
on record the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to grant
any relief to the appellant.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have also gone through the materials available on record.
10. The limited issue which arises for consideration
before this Court is as to whether the order passed by the
learned Single Judge suffers from any illegality, perversity or
infirmity warranting interference in the appellate jurisdiction of
this Court.
11. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced
on behalf of the parties, it appears that the original settlement
was made in the year 1976-77 in favour of four persons,
including Bibi Aysha Khatoon, in equal shares. After her death
in 1980, her legal heirs inherited her share and transferred the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.179 of 2026 dt.26-10-2026
13/17
same to the appellants by registered sale deed dated 07.11.2009.
The appellants' names were thereafter mutated in the revenue
records. The Collector, Kishanganj, subsequently cancelled the
original settlement and the consequential jamabandi by order
dated 15.06.2021.
12. The principal question is whether the legal heirs of
the original settlee were competent to transfer the land without
restriction. In this regard, the nature of the original settlement
and the statutory provisions governing the grant assume
significance. As noticed by the learned Single Judge, Section 9
of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947,
Section 14 of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954, and Section
27(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and
Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, contain restrictions
concerning the transfer of land covered by the respective
enactments. Where such a restriction applies, inheritance of the
land does not, by itself, confer an unrestricted right of transfer
upon the legal heirs. The registered sale deed cannot override a
statutory prohibition applicable to the original settlement.
13. The appellants’ reliance upon Ramowtar
Lakhotia v. State of Bihar, C.W.J.C. No. 16494 of 2018 ,
decided on 10.04.2024, must also be considered in its proper

Patna High Court L.P.A No.179 of 2026 dt.26-10-2026
14/17
context. In the said decision, the Division Bench held that
cancellation of jamabandi in summary revenue proceedings
cannot, by itself, authorise dispossession and delivery of
possession to another person. The said judgment, however, does
not validate a transfer otherwise prohibited by law. The question
of the validity of the transfer and the question of dispossession
pursuant to cancellation of jamabandi are distinct issues.
14. It is equally well settled that mutation entries do
not create or extinguish title. In Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, reported
in (1996) 6 SCC 223 , and Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh,
reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court
reiterated that mutation in revenue records is primarily for fiscal
purposes. The relevant portion of Sawarni (supra) reads as
follows:
“7..Mutation of a property in the revenue record
does not create or extinguish title nor has it any
presumptive value on title. It only enables the
person in whose favour mutation is ordered to
pay the land revenue in question. The learned
Additional District Judge was wholly in error in
coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour
of Inder Kaur conveys title in her favour. This
erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire
judgment…”
15. The relevant portion of Balwant Singh (supra)
reads as follows:
“27. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion

Patna High Court L.P.A No.179 of 2026 dt.26-10-2026
15/17
that the trial court erred in assuming that by
Mutation No. 1311, the widow divested herself of
the title to the suit property by treating the
mutation as gift and conveying title. Further it
has not applied uniform test in appreciating the
mutation entries. In one place, the trial court has
accepted mutation entries in toto even for
conveying title but in the other place, the trial
court was not prepared to accept the mutation
entries by expressing some doubt about it. It is to
be stated that this Court in Gurbaksh Singh v.
Nikka Singh [AIR 1963 SC 1917 : 1963 Supp (1)
SCR 55] has held that entries in mutation must
be taken as correct unless the contrary is
established. Here the trial court has shifted the
burden on the appellants to prove the entries as
correct. The trial court has failed to apply the
same yardstick that it had applied to Mutation
No. 1311 to Mutation No. 1348. Assuming for the
sake of argument, that Mutation No. 1348 was
on the basis of misunderstanding of the
judgments in the earlier proceedings, that having
been allowed to remain unaltered without
challenge, cannot be brushed aside as worth
nothing. Anybody affected by such entries should
have challenged the same as provided under the
law. In the absence of that, the entries cannot be
ignored. Be that as it may, we have already
noticed that mutation entries do not convey or
extinguish any title and those entries are relevant
only for the purpose of collection of land
revenue. That being the position, Mutation No.
1311 cannot be construed as conveying title in
favour of Balwant Singh and Kartar Singh or
extinguishing the title of Durga Devi in the suit
property. Consequently, the title to the suit
property always vested with the widow
notwithstanding Mutation No. 1311. Viewed in
this manner, the decision in the earlier
proceedings namely, decree in Suit No. 194 of
1955 even assuming that it operates as res
judicata, will not be of any avail to the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.179 of 2026 dt.26-10-2026
16/17
contesting respondents (plaintiffs) in the present
suit because the reliefs sought in the prior
proceeding was for a simple declaration that the
“mutation gift” of 1954 would not affect the
reversionary rights of the reversioners. As
noticed already, mutation entries will not convey
or extinguish title in the property. Therefore,
under Mutation No. 1311 neither Balwant Singh
and Kartar Singh acquired title nor Durga
Devi's title in the property got extinguished. The
earlier court proceedings did not and could not
convey title in favour of the reversioners, as the
relief sought was for a simple declaration as
mentioned above. If no title as such was passed
on under the alleged “mutation gift”, the limited
right of the widow in the property would get
enlarged on the coming into force of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956.”
16. Consequently, mutation of the appellants’ names
and payment of rent cannot, by themselves, establish the
validity of the transfer if the same is contrary to the statutory
provisions governing the original settlement.
17. The appellants have also questioned the
proceedings on the ground that the original settlee had died long
before their initiation. The validity of such proceedings must be
examined with reference to the statutory authority exercised and
compliance with the applicable requirements of notice and
hearing. However, the death of the original settlee and the
passage of time do not, by themselves, extinguish a statutory
restriction governing the transfer of the land.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.179 of 2026 dt.26-10-2026
17/17
18. Upon an overall consideration of the facts and the
applicable legal principles, we find no sufficient ground to hold
that the learned Single Judge committed any illegality or
perversity in examining the statutory restrictions governing the
original settlement and the subsequent transfer. The appellants
have failed to establish that inheritance, execution of the
registered sale deed and mutation, by themselves, conferred an
unrestricted right over the land. The issue framed is therefore,
answered against the appellants.
19. Accordingly, the present intra court appeal stands
dismissed.
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands
disposed of.

(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Sujit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 29.10.2026
Transmission Date NA