IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LPA No.658 of 2004
JANKI MANJHI S/O LATE SAMPAT MANJHI, R/O VILLAGE-GOPALPUR, P.S.
AUTAR NAGAR, P.O. NARAON, DISTRICT-
SARAN...............................................................PETITIONER/APPELLANT.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHAPRA, DISTRICT-SARAN
3. BACHCHA PANDEY
4. SRI KANT PANDEY
5. SURENDRA PANDEY
6. CHANDRA BHUSHAN PANDEY, ALL SONS OF RAM KRIT
PANDEY
7. (a) SHILLA ALIAS SITA DEVI, WIFE OF DEENA NATH PANDEY.
7. (b) RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY.
7. (c) MINTU ALIAS MUKESH KUMAR PANDEY, BOTH ARE SON OF
LATE DEENA NATH PANDEY.
7. (d) RANJANA KUMARI ALIAS GURIYA, DAUGHTER OF LATE
DEENA NATH PANDEY, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-NARAON,
POLICE-STATION-AWTAR NAGAR, POST OFFICE-NARAON, DISTRICT-
SARAN.
8. TARKESHWAR PANDEY, SON OF LATE JANARDAN PANDEY.
9. (a) DASRATH RAI, SON OF LATE GORAKH RAI,
(b) KAMAL DEVI,
(c) PUNAM DEVI,
(d) MUNNI DEVI, ALL ARE DAUGHTERS OF LATE GORAKH RAI,
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BARA GOPALPUR, P.O.-NARON,
P.S.AWTAR NAGAR, DISTRICT-SARAN.
-----------
For the appellants:- Mr. Shashi Shekar Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Chandra, Advocate
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocate
———-
25/ 28-Sep-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
2. In spite of notice and appearance made by
some of the respondents through Vakalatnama, nobody
has appeared on behalf of private respondents.
3. This intra-court appeal has been preferred
against order dated 9.4.2004 whereby a learned single
2
Judge of this Court has dismissed writ petition
preferred by the appellant bearing CWJC. No.12489 of
2003.
4. The appellant/writ petitioner had applied
for mutation over the concerned land in his favour
which was allowed by the Circle Officer. Against that
order the private respondents preferred appeal before
learned Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Saran at
Chhapra, who allowed the appeal by order dated
31.12.1998. The appellant preferred Mutation Revision
Case No.41 of 2001 in which he subsequently filed an
amendment petition which has been disallowed by the
Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Saran at Chhapra by
the order challenged in the writ petition dated
22.08.2003 contained in Annexure-1 to the writ
petition.
5. In order to appreciate as to whether the
amendment will take away any admission etc. made by
the appellant, we wanted the appellant to produce
before us his application filed for mutation as well as
his reply before the appellate court, if any. But the
same could not be produced in spite of adjournment
3
given for that purpose.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has
placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court
in the case of Prem Bakshi v. Dharam Deo reported in
(2002)2 PLJR (SC)187 . That judgment dealt with
order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. and the Apex Court took
a view that amendment of pleadings should generally
be allowed because there is very little chance of failure
of justice on account of an amendment but refusal to
allow amendment may cause failure of justice. In the
present case, the prayer for amendment is not in respect
of averments in the mutation application but the
amendment sought for is in revision application before
revisional authority. That would make a significant
difference because at revisional stage the authority has
to consider the legality and propriety of the order under
revision on the basis of all the materials available on
record. Some statements included or omitted in the
revisional application cannot make much difference to
the parties who are free to raise permissible grounds on
the basis of materials on record.
7. Hence, in our view no interference is
4
required in the matter and accordingly, this L.P.A. is
dismissed.
8. However, it is clarified that without being
influenced by the prayer for amendment or its refusal,
the revisional authority shall consider all the available
arguments which may be raised by the appellant/writ
petitioner on the basis of materials available on records.
( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)
(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)
perwez