IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11927 of 2008 SEETA FATMAWIFE OF LATE MD.QURBAN MANSOORI, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BHAGWANPUR CHOWK, P.S. SADAR, MUZAFFARPUR, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4 31.8.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.6. In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 16.1.2008 passed by the Collector, Muzaffarpur in Mutation Case No.52/2006-07, contained in Annexure-2, whereby he has set aside the order dated 30.11.2004 passed by the D.C.L.R., Muzaffarpur East in Misc.Case No.92 of 2003-04. The petitioner states that she was married to one Md. Qurban Mansoori on 5.2.1964. In support of her contention, she had filed Nikahnama as well as affidavits of different people before the D.C.L.R. to show that she is the wife of late Md. Qurban Mansoori. The aforesaid Qurban Mansoori died in 1970. In the year 2002-03 she learnt that respondent no.6 Julekha Khatoon is disposing of the property of her husband at Bombay as well as those situated in the district of Muzaffarpur. Thereafter she filed a Misc. Case for correcting her name in the Jamabandi standing in the name of respondent no.6 since 1978-79. The D.C.L.R. found that the petitioner is the first wife of Md. Qurban Mansoori married on 5.2.1964 and as such allowed the correction of Jamabandi in her favour. The petitioner further submits that a Vigilance case was 2 instituted against her and other officials but nevertheless in the Vigilance Case witnesses vide paragraphs 17 and 18 have stated that the petitioner is the first wife of late Md. Qurban Mansoori. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, respondent no.6 moved the Collector, Muzaffarpur in Mutation Case No.52/2006-07 who by order dated 16.1.2008 has set aside the order of the D.C.L.R. holding that the latter did not have jurisdiction to set aside the long standing Jamabandi and take upon himself to decide the complicated issue like succession, right and title. The Collector also noticed that respondent no.6 has been regularly paying the rent and there was no occasion for Jamabandi correction as there has been no transfer or partition of the land. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.6 states that a Vigilance Case was instituted against the petitioner and others as she had played fraud in obtaining documents in order to claim the property of respondent no.6. He further states that though the petitioner has described her self in this writ petition as Seeta Fatma, she described herself as Fatma Mansoori @ Seeta Bai in the alleged application filed before the D.C.L.R. He further submits that in one of the documents she has put her L.T.I. whereas she had signed herself in English in the affidavit sworn before this court. The Vigilance has submitted charge sheet against her and other persons and the Vigilance Court had taken cognizance also. It is well settled that Jamabandi created in favour of a person could be altered if there is a death or transfer of the land in 3 KHAN question. The Jamabandi could also be cancelled if the same has been registered on the basis of no material or on playing fraud. In the instant case the Jamabandi was created in favour of respondent no.6 vide Mutation Case No.195/1978-79. In the aforesaid case the respondent no.6 claims to be the wife of late Md.Qurban Mansoori. The Jamabandi so created cannot be cancelled after long period and that too on a document which is not free from doubt. A Jamabandi can be cancelled if the same has been obtained by playing fraud. However, the authority would not take upon himself the powers of a competent Civil Court to settle the complicated question of succession, right and title. The respondent no.6 has referred to a portion of the Vigilance report from which it appears that Nikahnama has been obtained by duping the person concerned. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this court finds that the Collector has rightly set aside the order dated 30.11.2004 passed by the D.C.L.R., Muzaffarpur East allowing correction of Jamabandi in favour of the petitioner. This writ petition has, thus, no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. However, it would be open to the petitioner to pursue her remedy in the Title Suit filed by her. (S.P.Singh,J)