A revenue order based on an unsupported change in a tank’s character is liable to be set aside.

The dispute concerned 1.30 acres of land in Mouza Bahapur No. 314, Anchal Maheshpur, recorded in the last survey settlement as “Anabadi Pushkarni” (unabadi khas tank), bearing Jamabandi No. 94 and Plot No. 19, District Pakur.

The tank had allegedly been settled as a Sairat from 1992–93 by the District Fishery Officer in favour of Maheshpur Matsyajivi Sahyog Samiti Limited, which subsequently settled it with its members. The petitioner claimed settlement of the tank in his favour for the year 2007–08.

Respondent No. 8, Balia Begum, instituted Revenue Miscellaneous Case No. 14 of 2002–03 before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Pakur, seeking confirmation of Bhoodan Patta No. 77761 and fixation of rent over the same land. The D.C.L.R. confirmed the Bhoodan patta by order dated 26.09.2003.

On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, set aside that order on 08.05.2007, holding that it had been passed without notice to the petitioner and other affected raiyats.

In revision, the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, allowed Respondent No. 8’s revision on 20.06.2018 and restored the D.C.L.R.’s order. The Commissioner relied upon an enquiry report suggesting that the tank had changed into agricultural land and that there had been no Sairat settlement.

During the writ proceedings, the High Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, to conduct a spot verification regarding the present nature of the land, the alleged change in its character, and the history of its settlement for fisheries. The Deputy Commissioner reported that the land continued to be a tank and was regularly settled as a Sairat.

Whether the Commissioner’s order dated 20.06.2018, reversing the appellate order and upholding confirmation of the Bhoodan patta, was sustainable when its finding that the tank had become agricultural land was contrary to the factual record?

Whether the High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, could set aside the Commissioner’s order while leaving disputed questions of title open for determination by a competent Civil Court?

The Court applied the principle that an administrative or quasi-judicial order founded on a factual finding unsupported by the record, or contrary to subsequently verified facts, cannot be sustained.

The Court also recognized that disputed claims of title over immovable property are appropriately determined by a competent Civil Court and not conclusively adjudicated in writ proceedings.

The Commissioner’s conclusion that the land had ceased to be a tank and had become agricultural land was contradicted by the Deputy Commissioner’s spot-verification report, which confirmed that the land remained a tank and continued to be regularly settled as a Sairat.

Since the factual basis of the Commissioner’s order was therefore “absolutely beyond records and without any basis whatsoever,” the High Court found the impugned order unsustainable.

The Court accordingly interfered with the Commissioner’s order but did not finally determine ownership or title, preserving the parties’ right to seek relief before the Civil Court.

The Court left it open to any party claiming title over the land to institute an appropriate civil suit for adjudication of that claim.