BLDR authorities must leave complex title disputes to the competent civil courts.

The appellant purchased 1 Katha 19 Dhur 17 Dhurki of land from Ramjeet Yadav by registered sale deed dated 22 May 2009; her name was mutated and a Jamabandi created.

She later transferred 15 Dhur to Gyanti Devi.

Following a dispute with other co-sharers and their legal representatives, the appellant sought measurement and demarcation under the Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act, 2009.

The D.C.L.R. allowed her application, but the Commissioner set that order aside; the Bihar Land Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner’s decision.

The appellant’s writ petition was dismissed, and she appealed.

Whether the learned Single Judge’s refusal to interfere with the Bihar Land Tribunal’s order suffered from illegality or infirmity warranting appellate intervention.

Whether measurement and demarcation could be pursued under the Act where the competing claims involved a complex dispute over co-sharers’ rights and title, including in the context of a pending title suit.

Section 4(5) of the Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act, 2009 requires the competent authority to close a proceeding where it involves a complex question of title, leaving the parties to seek a remedy before the competent civil court.

In State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani Singh, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 306, the Supreme Court stated that disputed questions of title ordinarily cannot be satisfactorily adjudicated in writ proceedings.

In Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802, the Supreme Court reiterated that mutation entries do not create or extinguish title and are maintained for fiscal purposes; title disputes are for the competent civil court.

The Court considered that the appellant claimed through one co-sharer, while other co-sharers and their legal representatives asserted competing rights, and a title suit concerning the land was pending.

Determining the extent of the land conveyed and the parties’ respective rights could not, in these circumstances, be separated from the underlying title dispute.

Mutation, Jamabandi and the land possession certificate did not resolve those competing claims.

Applying Section 4(5), and the principles governing title disputes in writ proceedings, the Court found no basis to disturb the Single Judge’s decision.

It left the appellant at liberty to raise her grievance in the pending Title Partition Suit No. 451 of 2018, to be considered by the civil court in accordance with law and uninfluenced by observations in these proceedings.