IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12025 of 2011 Md.Hasnain S/O Late Md. Rafi R/O Mohalla- Darji Tola, Sabzibagh, P.O.-Bankipur, P.S.- Pirbahore, Distt.- Patna …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Secretary Revenue Department, Bihar Patna 2. Nuzhat Ara D/O Md. Sadrul Haque R/O Mohalla- Pathar Ki Masjid, P.S.- Sultanganj, Distt.- Patna 3. Ismat D/O Md. Sadrul Haque R/O Mohalla- Pathar Ki Masjid, P.S.- Sultanganj, Distt.- Patna 4. Rizwana D/O Md. Sadrul Haque R/O Mohalla- Pathar Ki Masjid, P.S.- Sultanganj, Distt.- Patna 5. Tasnim D/O Md. Sadrul Haque R/O Mohalla- Pathar Ki Masjid, P.S.- Sultanganj, Distt.- Patna 6. Sarwat D/O Md. Sadrul Haque R/O Mohalla- Pathar Ki Masjid, P.S.- Sultanganj, Distt.- Patna 7. Parveen W/O Minjhaul Haque R/O Mohalla- Pathar Ki Masjid, P.S.- Sultanganj, Distt.- Patna 8. Imamul Hoda S/O Najmul Hoda R/O Mohalla- Pathar Ki Masjid, P.S.- Sultanganj, Distt.- Patna 9. Ahteshamul Haque S/O Najmul Hoda R/O Mohalla- Pathar Ki Masjid, P.S.- Sultanganj, Distt.- Patna 10. Wasimul Haque S/O Ashraful Hoda R/O Mohalla- Pathar Ki Masjid, P.S.- Sultanganj, Distt.- Patna 11. The Collector, Patna 12. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Patna City 13. The Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna …… Respondents For the Petitioner : M/s Dinu Kumar and Shiw Kumar Prabhakar, Advocates For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, G.P. 8 For Respondent : Mr. Akashdeep, Advocate Nos. 2 o 10 3 14.09.2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to add the Collector, Patna, the Land 2 Reforms Deputy Collector, Patna City and the Circle Officer, Patna Sadar in array of the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the respondent nos. 2 to 10. Writ petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 6.7.2011 passed by respondent no. 11, the Collector, Patna, in Mutation Revision Case No. 7 of 2007-08 as contained in Annexure 4, whereby the order passed by the respondent no. 12 the L.R.D.C. Patna City in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2006-07 was set aside. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of order dated 10.5.2006 passed by the respondent no. 13, the Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, whereby the request of the petitioner for mutation of his name with respect to the land was refused. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that by a sada deed of settlement executed by the Ex-landlord after receiving salami of Rs. 95/-, the land concerned was settled in favour of father of the petitioner, Md. Rafi and on account of subsequent hibba, whereby the land has been gifted to the petitioner by the father on 19.05.1948 when the 3 petitioner was minor, the petitioner filed an application for mutation of land in dispute of plot no. 1526 appertaining to khata no. 219, Tauzi no. 26, Thana No. 12 measuring an area of 2 acres 15 ½ decimals, which is situated in Mauza Kumhrar, P.S. Sultanganj at present P.S. Agamkuan under the Patna Municipal Corporation. His case was registered as Misc. Case No. 50 of 2004-05. However, the same was dismissed vide Annexure 1 dated 10.05.2006 on the ground that the jamabandi is running in the name of other raiyat since 1987 itself and for allowing the prayer of the petitioner that would have to be cancelled which would not be within the jurisdiction of the concerned Circle Officer. The petitioner then preferred an appeal against that order before the respondent no. 12, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Patna City, who had allowed the appeal vide an order dated 28.02.2007 as contained in Annexure 3 holding that the earlier jamabandi was created without following the proper procedure and, thus, the same was cancelled and on the basis of the sada settlement dated 23.6.1938 and the deed of gift dated 4 19.5.1948, the jamabandi was created in the name of the petitioner. Aforesaid order was challenged by the respondent nos. 2 to 10 before the respondent no. 11, the Collector, Patna. The Collector, Patna vide the impugned order dated 6.7.2011 as contained in Annexure 4 has set aside the order passed by the respondent no. 12, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Patnacity and holding that the jamabandi which has been created in year 1983 itself on the basis of registered deed cannot be cancelled and created in favour of opposite party (writ petitioner herein) on the basis of sada deed of settlement ignoring the registered one in spite of the fact that they had not moved for creation of jamabandi on any earlier occasion. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land concerned was settled by a sada patta in favour of the father of the petitioner, namely, Md. Rafi in the year 1943 itself and thereafter in the year 1948 by a hibbanama the land was gifted to the petitioner by his father while he was minor. Therefore, he had moved before the Circle Officer, 5 Sadar, Patna for creation of jamabandi in his name. He further submitted that the Collector, Patna has erroneously passed the impugned order ignoring the fact that the settlement in favour of the father of the petitioner was much earlier than the claimed registered settlement in favour of the respondent nos. 2 to 10. Learned counsel has also stated that the petitioner has moved for mutation in his name only after the death of his mother in the year 2003. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 to 10 has submitted that after the registered settlement the rent was being paid to the erstwhile landlord by the settlee. After vesting of Zamindari, jamabandi was created in favour of the settlee. Subsequently, the jamabandi was created in the name of defendants in the year 1983 after the death of earlier settlee. I have heard the parties and perused the records of the case. The respondent no. 11, the Collector, Patna, after perusing the records of the case has carved out four points that have been pleaded on behalf of the 6 parties as under: 1- nksuks i{k iz’uxr Hkw[k.M dks HkwriwoZ tehUnkj ds tehUnkj ds }kjk cUnksoLrh ls izkIr crkrs gSA 2- nksuks i{kksa ds }kjk lk{; ds :i esa HkwriwoZ tehUnkj ds }kjk fuxZr ekyxqtkjh jlhn izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA 3- vkosnd ds }kjk fcgkj ljdkj ds }kjk fuxZr ekyxqtkjh jlhn izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA lkFk gh lkFk gqdqeukek fnukad 14-9-1943 Hkh izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA 4- foi{khx.k ds }kjk gsCckukek ,oa iV~Vk cankscLrh lu` 1938 dk lknk gqdqeukek izLrqr fd;k x;kA Upon consideration of the aforesaid facts and the materials on record he has come to the conclusion that the revision petitioners ( respondent nos. 2 to 10) have produced the rent receipt granted by the erstwhile Zamindar, the rent receipt issued by the State of Bihar. He has found that the jamabandi 7 was created in their favour much earlier, which is based upon a registered hukumnama, a copy of which was also produced before the revisional authority. Thus, he has come to the conclusion that it would not be proper to cancel the jamabandi existing for several decades in the name of the revision petitioner (respondent nos. 2 to 10) on the basis of a sada patta ( settlement) produced by the writ petitioner allegedly having been executed in 1938 but never produced before any authority till 2004-05. This Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the respondent no. 11. The petitioner has not been able to explain that though the deed of gift was executed in his favour in the year 1948, assuming that he was minor at that of point of time, why he did not immediately moved the authority for mutation in his name on the basis of the aforesaid deed of gift even after attaining majority and waited for several decades. The death of his mother in 2003 would not be of much relevance as the hibba was created in favour of the writ petitioner himself and even if it is assumed that he was minor in 1948, he must have 8 attained majority in the year 1966 itself even if it is assumed that he was born in 1948 itself. Lastly, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has produced the rent receipt issued by the Patna Municipal Corporation on his behalf but the same admittedly having been subsequent to the order dated 22.8.2007, would be not be of much relevance. That apart, it is well settled that entry in revenue record neither creates nor extinguishes right, title and interest. The Apex Court in Sitaram Choubey & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1993(2) PLJR 255 has held that by reason of an entry in Register II, a person merely becomes entitled to deposit rent, since the mutation order passed by the Revenue Authorities are only administrative orders and not a judicial or quasi judicial pronouncement. In above view of the matter, as I have not found any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Collector, Patna, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the parties aggrieved would 9 always have a right to move before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of their right, title and interest of possession, if they so desire. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)