Expeditious Disposal of Statutory Appeals Mandated to Prevent Prolonged Land Litigation and Resolve Disputes effectively.

The petitioner purchased 13 decimals of land in 2003 via a registered sale deed and subsequently obtained a mutation order and Jamabandi in his name

A dispute arose when private respondents claimed ownership of the same plot through a different chain of sale deeds

The petitioner moved the Additional Collector, Gaya, under Section 9 of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011, for cancellation of the rival Jamabandi. On 09.02.2022, the Additional Collector rejected the petitioner’s application and further directed the cancellation of the petitioner’s own Jamabandi

The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal (Appeal No. 09 of 2022) before the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Gaya, in 2022

the appeal remained pending for three years without disposal, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court for a direction for expeditious resolution

1. Whether the District Magistrate-cum-Collector is mandated to decide appeals against Jamabandi cancellation orders within a reasonable or expeditious timeframe

2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the pendency of a statutory appeal when the grievance is the non-disposal of said appeal

Section 9 of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011, which empowers the Collector to hear appeals against orders passed by the Additional Collector regarding the cancellation of Jamabandi

The court interpreted this provision as imposing a mandate on the Collector to settle land disputes expeditiously to prevent the generation of protracted litigation

The Court rejected the State's objection regarding maintainability, noting that the petitioner was not seeking a merit-based adjudication of the land dispute from the High Court, but rather seeking a remedy against the Collector's administrative delay

The Court observed that the appeal had been pending for nearly three years despite the statutory intent of the Act of 2011 to provide a swift resolution to land disputes

It reasoned that the failure of the District Magistrate to decide the appeal in a timely manner frustrated the legal objective of settling titles and preventing further litigation

Consequently, the Court found it necessary to exercise its writ jurisdiction to enforce a time-bound disposal of the statutory appeal

The High Court directed Respondent No. 3 to decide Appeal No. 09 of 2022 on its merits after hearing all parties within a strict period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions