Patna High Court

Ajit KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 10 February 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: PURNENDU SINGH

Holding

The Court held that the Circle Officer assumed jurisdiction without considering the requisite jurisdictional facts, rendering his order ultra vires; therefore, the order was quashed and the officer was directed to mutate the land after a proper hearing.

Summary

The petitioner purchased land and applied for mutation of title, but the Circle Officer rejected the application by e‑communication without giving notice or a hearing, citing vague objections from villagers and a claim that the land belongs to a Math. The petitioner sought certiorari to quash the order and mandamus to compel mutation after a proper opportunity to present evidence. The Court examined whether the Circle Officer had jurisdiction to reject the mutation without addressing the statutory jurisdictional facts under Section 6(4) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011, and whether natural justice was violated. It found that the officer had assumed jurisdiction without discussing the required facts and acted ultra vires. Consequently, the order was quashed and the officer was directed to mutate the land after a proper enquiry. The writ petition was disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the Circle Officer had jurisdiction to reject the mutation application without notice and hearing, in violation of natural justice and Section 6(4) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011.
Whether the order rejecting the mutation can be quashed by a writ of certiorari.
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to direct the officer to decide the mutation after affording the petitioner an opportunity to adduce evidence.
Whether the pending status of the mutation case infringes the petitioner's property right under Article 300A of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 — s. 5, 6(4), Rule 5

Subjects

land mutation
natural justice
jurisdiction
certiorari
mandamus
revenue law
possession
Bihar

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11087 of 2022
======================================================
Ajit Kumar Son of Parshuram Singh Resident of Village- Laxmipur, Police
Station- Barahiya, District- Lakhisarai.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Jamui.
4. The Circle Officer, Sikandra, Jamui.
5. The Public Grievance Redressal Officer, Government of Bihar, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan, Advocate
Mrs. Shrishti Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Atul Shankar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 10-02-2026
Heard Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Atul Shankar,

learned counsel for the respondent/s.

2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ

petition has sought, inter alia, following relief(s), which is

reproduced hereinafter:-

"(i) For a writ of certiorari to quash the e-
communication dated 23.08.2021,, passed in Case No. 1149
of 2021-22, whereby without notice to the petitioner or the
persons alleged to be interested or the villagers who are
alleged to be cultivating the land, the impugned order has
been passed in complete violation of principle of natural
justice and in flagrant violation of Sub Section 6 (4) of the
Bihar Land Mutation Act 2011 as even in case of objection
under Sub Section 6 (4) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act
2011 no order shall be passed unless the parties have been
given reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence and being
Patna High Court CWJC No.11087 of 2022 dt.10-02-2026
2/10

heard.
(ii) For a writ of mandamus commanding the
respondent Circle Officer to decide the mutation case in
accordance with law after affording opportunity of
adducing oral and documentary evidence to the petitioner
in support of his title and possession on the suit land.
(iii) For any other relief / reliefs to which the
petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of
the case."

BRIEF FACTS

3. The brief facts of the case are that the land

appertaining to Khata No. 156, Kheshra No. 752 measuring 4

Acre 21 Decimal, Khata No. 156, Kheshra No. 625 measuring 3

Acre 65 Decimal and Khata No. 155, Kheshra No. 731

measuring 71 Decimal, situated in Thana No. 214, Mauza

Sikandara, Police Station–Charan, District–Jamui, was recorded

in the Revisional Survey in the name of Mathura Singh,

grandfather of Kumar Neeraj, and till date Jamabandi continues

in his name, with rent having been regularly paid by Kumar

Neeraj on behalf of his late grandfather and rent receipts issued

up to the year 2021; due to compelling family necessity, Kumar

Neeraj decided to sell the land and, after negotiation, agreed to

transfer the same to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.

40,00,000/-, pursuant to which a registered sale deed bearing

No. 6805 dated 31.07.2021 was duly executed conveying all

right, title and interest in favour of the petitioner; thereafter, the

petitioner applied for mutation of his name in the revenue
Patna High Court CWJC No.11087 of 2022 dt.10-02-2026
3/10

records through online mode on 23.08.2021, which was

registered as Mutation Case No. 1149 of 2021–22, and the

Circle Officer directed a local enquiry through his subordinate,

but upon receipt of the enquiry report, without initiating any

formal proceeding or granting any opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner, the Circle Officer abruptly rejected the mutation

application by e-communication dated 23.08.2021 uploaded on

the mutation portal, solely on the basis of a vague report

alleging that unnamed villagers claimed cultivation over the

land, treating the same as an objection and thereby passing an

arbitrary and illegal order, giving rise to the present writ

petition.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submitted that petitioner after purchasing a piece of

land appertaining to Khata No. 156, Khesra No. 752 measuring

4 Acre 21 decimal, Khata No. 156, Khesra No. 625, measuring 3

acre 65 decimal and Khata No. 155, Khesra No. 731 measuring

71 decimal situated in Thana No. 214 at Mauza Sikandara,

Jamui, from his vendor namely, Kumar Neeraj through

registered Sale Deed No. 6805 dated 31.07.2021, had applied

for mutation in his name through online mode on 23.08.2021 by
Patna High Court CWJC No.11087 of 2022 dt.10-02-2026
4/10

intimating the Circle Officer, Sikandara, it was registered being

the Mutation Case No. 1149 of 2021-22 and directed the

Karamchari to make enquiry and verify revenue records and

submit a report. He further submitted that at the stage of

enquiry, the Karmchari reported that some unauthorized persons

have occupied the aforesaid piece of land, though, Jamabandi is

in the name of one Mathura Singh, ancestor of the vendor of the

petitioner, namely, Kumar Neeraj, son of Late Nand Kishore

Singh. He further submitted that to support the said information,

the Circle Officer, in paragraph no. 6 of his counter affidavit,

has stated that petitioner had submitted an application before

Mukhya Mantri Janta Darwar on 25.08.2021 stating therein that

he has no possession over the land in question. Referring to

'Annexure-3 to the writ petition' learned counsel submitted that

the Circle Officer, for the reason best known to him, has been

able to manage some local people, who have allegedly filed

their undated objection that they are in cultivating possession of

the aforesaid land since long time. It has also been mentioned in

the said application that the land in question don't belong to the

petitioner rather the same belongs to one Math, however, name

of the Math is not mentioned, nor the nature of the Math is

given whether the same is registered with the Bihar Religious
Patna High Court CWJC No.11087 of 2022 dt.10-02-2026
5/10

Trust Board or the same is a private Math. The Circle Officer on

the basis of the report of the Karmchari, has kept the Mutation

Case No. 1149/2021-22 of the petitioner pending since the year

2021. He further submitted that in terms of Section 5 read with

Rule 5 of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011, the Circle Officer

can himself do enquiry. On these grounds, learned counsel seeks

interference of this Court.

5. Per contra, Mr. Atul Shankar, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the State submitted that to mutate the

land, the very objective of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 is

to provide for regulating the process of mutation of land and

making it commitment to the needs of present time, merely

getting mutation gives right to the persons, who are in

possession of the land. In the present case, the vendor of the

petitioner was not in possession of the land, the day he sold the

land by executing the Sale Deed No. 6805 dated 30.07.2021 in

favour of the petitioner. The report has been submitted by the

Circle Officer both on the basis of confidential enquiry, as well

as, the physical enquiry on the spot after inviting participation

from the petitioner and his vendor. The C.I. and the Karmchari

found on the spot that that vendor of the petitioner was not in

peaceful possession of the land in question and question of
Patna High Court CWJC No.11087 of 2022 dt.10-02-2026
6/10

mutation for fixation of rent on the basis of Sale Deed No. 6805

dated 31.07.2021 does not arise. The petitioner instead of filing

his objection to the objection filed by the villagers, has

straightaway filed the present writ petition before any order

rejecting the mutation, has been passed by the Circle Officer. He

further submitted that law does not provide, that anything,

which is anticipated, can be given its effect. On these grounds,

learned counsel submitted that writ petition being pre-mature is

fit to be dismissed.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

6. Heard the parties.

7. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf

of the parties, the question, which requires consideration of this

Court is, as to whether, the notice, which has been uploaded on

the official website of the Revenue Department after registering

a Mutation Case No. 1149/2021-22 and kept the same pending

on the basis of the report of the C.I. and Karmchari, will amount

to affect the right of the petitioner and calls for interference of

this Court.

8. The report of the Karmchari admits the fact that

the Jamabandi is running in the name of the ancestor of the

vendor of the petitioner, namely, Late Mathura Singh. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.11087 of 2022 dt.10-02-2026
7/10

report doesn't give information that the vendor of the petitioner

or his ancestor has not been making payment of the revenue

fixed for the land, which the petitioner has purchased. Petitioner

has been able to bring on record some of the revenue receipts till

the Financial Year 2011-22, though, he claims that subsequent to

that, up-to-date rent receipts have also been generated in the

name of the ancestor of the vendor of the petitioner, namely,

Mathura Singh as would appear from 'Annexure-1 to the writ

petition'.

9. The Circle Officer has filed counter affidavit

giving information that some of the villagers are in cultivating

possession of the land, which the petitioner has purchased from

the descendant of the Late Mathura Singh and, as such, mutation

cannot be recommended on the said piece of land in view of the

enquiry report submitted by the Karmchari. The Circle Officer

in his counter affidavit, has given information that the lands in

respect of which the petitioner has filed mutation case, belongs

to a Math, however, no reference or information has been given

in respect of the name of Math and the nature of Math being

public Math registered with the Bihar Religious Trust Board or a

private Math. The petitioner claims title over the land in

question on the basis of sale deed and his mutation application
Patna High Court CWJC No.11087 of 2022 dt.10-02-2026
8/10

has not been disposed till date. The reason for same being that

there is Dakhal Kabja of villagers and property belongs to a

Math, however, the information contained in counter affidavit is

not supported by any rent receipts generated or any valid

evidence in support that the said property is in possession of a

Math. The Annexure-B to the counter affidavit has also been

brought on record in respect of the application filed by the

petitioner in Mukhya Mantri Janta Darwar on 25.08.2021,

wherein, the petitioner has admitted that he is not in possession

of the land for which he has filed the Mutation Case No. 1149 of

2021-22 but it is not denied by him or the revenue authorities

that the vendor of the petitioner was not in possession of the

said land on the date of execution of the sale deed. The record

shows that the petitioner had approached the Mukhya Mantri

Janta Darwar, where he has admitted that he is aggrieved by the

illegal action of the Circle Officer and the staffs of the Circle

namely, Sikandra, particularly, the karamcharis, who have

submitted the report that in absence of possession, the correction

slip cannot be generated. The said application, if allowed to be

entertained, then it will certainly affect the right of the petitioner

as enshrined under Article 300A.

10. In background of the above facts and
Patna High Court CWJC No.11087 of 2022 dt.10-02-2026
9/10

circumstances, now I analyse, as to whether, the Circle Officer,

before exercising jurisdiction and directing the Karmchari to

hold enquiry in respect of the land before mutating it can

assume jurisdiction to deny relief without giving the

jurisdictional facts. Law don't provide such exercise of

jurisdiction to be legal in any manner.

11. It is well settled principle of law, if a Court,

tribunal or quasi judicial authority wrongly assumes jurisdiction

without discussing the jurisdictional facts, such order or action

can be questioned by a writ of certiorari. The under line

principle is that by erroneously assuming jurisdiction of such

jurisdictional facts, no authority can confer upon it itself

jurisdiction, which it otherwise he doesn't possess. The absence

of jurisdictional fact is strong ground to invoke writ jurisdiction

and in alternative, if a jurisdictional fact exist, the plea of

alternative remedy could be a hurdle in entertaining a writ

petition.

12. From the records and the facts, and the

discussions made hereinabove, I find that the Circle Officer has

assumed jurisdiction without discussing the jurisdictional facts,

has acted without authority of law. In such circumstances, the

action of the Circle Officer calls for interference of this Court.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11087 of 2022 dt.10-02-2026
10/10

13. On the above settled principle of law, the action

of the Circle Officer insofar as keeping the Mutation Case No.

1149 of 2021-22 pending on the basis of the illegal Karmchari

report dated 23.08.2021 uploaded on the official website in

absence of any evidence in its support, the report is also fit to

be quashed and set aside.

14. The Circle Officer is directed to act within his

jurisdiction and forthwith mutate the land of the petitioner in

accordance with law by entertaining well founded objection

supported by evidence.

15. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands

disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 17.02.2026
Transmission Date N/A

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…