ORDER
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Sahani learned counsel for the respondents, and with their consent this writ application is disposed of at this stage.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.1998 passed by Additional Collector, Ranchi in Mutation Revision No. 660 R- 15/96-97 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records Act, 1973 whereby he has set aside the order dated 21.2.1997 passed by respondent No. 3 Land Reforms Dy. Collector, Khunti in Mutation Appeal No. 15/95-96 and also order dated 19.8.1995 passed by Circle Officer, in Mutation case No. 141/95-96.
3. The only question falls for consideration is that whether zamabandi running in
favour of the petitioner for more than a decade could be cancelled at the instance of the respondents who claimed their title over the property on the basis of purchase. It has not been disputed that the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue record of right in the year 1978 and he has been paying rent to the State of Bihar since then. The concerned respondents on the basis of purchase made in the year 1994 made an application before the Circle Officer for mutation of their names after cancelling the name of the petitioner from the revenue record. The Circle Officer after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and after considering the facts and evidences on record came to conclusion that mutation in respect of the property was done in the year 1978 in favour of the petitioner on the basis of possession and therefore application for mutation filed by the respondents cannot be allowed. Accordingly the application filed by the respondents was rejected, aggrieved by the said order respondents preferred appeal before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector being Mutation Appeal No. 15/95-96. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector Khunti after hearing the parties agreed with the finding recorded by the Circle Officer and dismissed the appeal. The respondents then preferred Revision before Additional Collector being Mutation Revision No. 660 R, 15/96-97. The revisional authority before disposing of the revision application called for a report from the Circle Officer, who reported that respondents are found in possession of the property. On the basis of the report of the Circle Officer, the Revisional Authority allowed the revision application and directed for mutation of the name of the respondents after cancelling the zamabandi running in the name of the petitioner for the last 20 years.
4. It has not been disputed by the respondents that mutation was effected in favour of the petitioner in the year 1978 and for the last 20 years the petitioner’s name was running in revenue record and he has been paying rent and taxes to the State of Bihar. In such circumstances the revisional authority was not justified in passing impugned order for cancellation of zamabandi running in the name of the petitioner. At best, revisional authority could have asked the respondents to go to the civil Court for adjudication of their title and possession. It is well settled that
zamabandi running in the name of particular person for several years can not be cancelled at the instance of the claimant in summary proceeding. The proper course for the claimant is to move to civil Court of competent jurisdiction for proper relief. In this connection reliance may be placed of two Division Bench Judgments in the case of Harihar Singh v. Addl. Collector, 1978 BBCJ 323 and in the case Jamaluddin Ahmad v. S.D.O., Khagaria and Ors., 1979 BBCJ 605.
5. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ
application is allowed and the impugned order
passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi is
set aside. I further hold that respondents may
approach the civil Court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief. It is made clear
that civil Court while deciding the suit that
may be filed by the respondent shall not be
prejudiced by any order passed by the Circle
Officer, the appellate authority or by this
Court.
6. Writ petition allowed.
