Letters Patent Appeal No.265 OF 2002 ******* Against the order dated 06.02.2002 passed in CWJC no. 7493 of 2001. ******* NAND KISHORE SAH & ORS--------Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS------Respondents ******* For the Appellants : M/s Shashi Shekhar Duvedi, & Raj Nandan Prasad. For the State : M/s Kameshwar Pd. Gupta, SC no. V & Dhurendra Kumar, JC. ******* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.PRASAD Barin Ghosh & C.M. Prasad, JJ. As has been held by the Privy Council in the case of (Thakur) Nirman Singh & Ors. Vrs. Thakur Rudra Pratab & Ors. (AIR 1926 Privy Council 100), mutations are in the nature of fiscal enquiries instituted in the interest of the State for the purpose of ascertaining which of the several claimants for the 2 occupation of certain denominations of immovable property may be put into occupation of it with greater confidence that the revenue for it will be paid and that the proceedings for mutation of names is not a judicial proceeding in which title to and the proprietary rights in immovable properties are determined. In the event there are rival claims and one of the claimant is mutated, that suggests that by the mutation the person, whose name has been mutated, has been put into occupation for the purpose of collecting revenue. However, the action of putting the person in occupation, as a fiction in consequence of mutation is no declaration that the person, who has been put in possession, is the title holder of the land. The true owner can take recourse to judicial proceeding to establish that he has a better title than 3 the person whose name stands mutated. Once such a judicial pronouncement is made, it cannot be contended on the strength of an earlier fiscal enquiry made for the purpose of mutation that the true title holder is not entitled to be recognized as the truthful occupier of the land for the purpose of revenue. However, before such a judicial pronouncement is made, based on fiscal enquiry only once it can be held or recognized with confidence that a particular person is entitle to be or should be deemed to be in occupation of the land in question for the purpose of recovery of revenue. That, however, does not restrain the revenue authority to rectify its mistake at a later point of time, but at that time, even if a new fiscal enquiry is made, they cannot recognize a better right of yet another person to be in occupation of the land in 4 question than the person, who stands mutated in respect of the land in question. 2. In the instant case, Cadastral Survey records of right show that the land in question belonged to the then Government of India. It is not the contention of the appellants that in the revisional survey the land in question was treated as a raiyati land belonging to the appellants. The fact, however, remains, that the land in question stood mutated in the name of the appellants since long and at least since 1962. This mutation has been cancelled by an order, which was impugned in the writ petition. The writ petition having been dismissed, with liberty to the appellants to approach the civil court to establish their title over the land, the appellants are before us in the present Letters Patent Appeal. 5 3. The Cadastral Survey records, in no uncertain terms, declares that the land in question belonged to the then Government of India. By virtue of the provisions contained in the Bihar Tenancy Act there is a presumption that the then Government of India is entitled to possess the land in question. A person can possess a piece of land, when he has right to possess the same either on the strength of title or on the strength of permission of the true owner. In view of the presumption, the then Government of India had right to possess the land in question at the time Cadastral Survey records were prepared. The appellants have not brought on the record that they came to occupy the land on the basis of any grant or permission accorded by the then Government of India. Instead the appellants are contending that they have 6 acquired title in the land through some other person. In such a situation, if the revenue authorities contend that mutating the appellants in respect of the land in question was a mistake, it would be difficult for a writ court to interfere. Principally for those reasons the writ court, while rejecting the writ petition, permitted the parties to approach the civil court to establish their title. 4. We, however, are little concerned with the order which was challenged in the writ petition. If the land in question belonged to the then Government of India, the same stood vested in the Central Government upon independence of India. Therefore, the Central Government or the Union of India is the owner of the land in question. It does not appear from the order that the State of Bihar acquired any 7 interest in the land in question from the Union of India. In other words, the order is totally silent as to devolution of title in the land in question from Union of India to the State Government. Despite that, the revenue authorities of the State in the order challenged in the writ petition purported to hold out that steps be taken for obtaining possession of the land in question. The State of Bihar, unless appointed by the Union of India as its Agent, cannot take any step to take possession of any land belonging to the Union of India. The records produced before us do not suggest that Union of India has granted any such authority in favour of the State of Bihar. In such view of the matter, we would interfere only with that part of the order under challenge in the writ petition and declare that the said part is of no effect. 8 5. Before parting, we would once again remind ourselves that in this country for 150 years law is settled that no one can be evicted without due process of law. 6. In the circumstances, only with the modification, as above, we dispose of the appeal. In the event, during the pendency of the writ petition or the appeal, the appellants have been dispossessed, it shall be open to the appellants to take such recourse to law, as they may be advised. (Barin Ghosh, J.) (C.M. Prasad, J.) Patna High Court, The 07th August, 2008. AAhmad/(NAFR).