IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 328 of 2010
Sarju Paswan . ... ... ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors.... ... .. Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH TATIA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA
——
For the Appellant : Mr. Ramawatar Chaubey
For the Respondent : G.P. I
------ Dated 11th May, 2011
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the respondents.
The appellant is aggrieved against the order of dismissal of
writ petition being W.P. ( C) No. 1559 of 2009 in the matter of
mutation proceedings.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that his father,
Bhukhali Paswan, filed a suit for declaration in the year 1998 in
the Court of Sub-Judge I, Chatra. The said Bhukhali Paswan died
in the year 2005 and an application for substitution of legal
representatives was though filed but before any order could have
been passed by the Civil Court on the said application, the
original applicant’s wife, who is mother of the present appellant,
withdrew the suit. Though withdrawal of the suit has not been
challenged is the admitted fact, in the mutation proceeding the
appellant wants to substitute his name in the record. It is not in
dispute that mutation proceeding is a fiscal proceeding and any
order passed in the mutation proceeding, gives no right, title and
interest in the property nor it gives a relief of possession to
anybody. It is also not in dispute that even if any order passed in
the mutation proceeding, which is upheld by the Highest Court,
even the aggrieved party can file the suit for declaration and for
appropriate relief, then in that situation, we do not find that this
Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Letters patent to
interfere in the order passed by these authorities who will not
give any relief to any party and proper remedy is to obtain relief
from competent Court of law, if it is available to the party.
So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that withdrawal of the suit by the wife of original
plaintiff namely, Bhukhali Paswan, the mother of the present
appellant was illegal is concerned, in mutation proceeding such
issue cannot be even looked into.
Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is
accordingly, dismissed.
However, if the appellant has any legal right in law then he
can certainly agitate that issue in properly instituted proceeding
before the Competent Court of jurisdiction but only if any right is
available to the appellant.
(Prakash Tatia, J)
(H.C. Mishra, J)
Alankar/Sudhir/-