Patna High Court

Swapnil Shrestha Rai @ Sonam RaiversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 14 May 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SOURENDRA PANDEY

Holding

A revenue authority cannot test the genuineness of an arbitral award; such challenges must be pursued under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and therefore the mutation in favour of the petitioner must be restored.

Summary

The petitioner, Swapnil Shrestha Rai, sought a writ directing the State of Bihar and various revenue officials to set aside orders that had cancelled her mutation of a land parcel allotted to her under a panchayat arbitration award. The award stemmed from an amicable partition agreement dated 28 July 2001, later formalised by an affidavit in 2015 appointing eight arbitrators, and was never challenged in court. The respondents argued that the arbitration agreement was invalid, the award was irregular, and that the revenue authorities lacked jurisdiction to enforce an arbitral award, invoking the Bihar Mutation Act and natural‑justice principles. The court held that challenges to the validity of an arbitral award must be made under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and revenue officials cannot examine the genuineness of the award. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders of the Deputy Collector, Additional Collector and the Bihar Land Tribunal and allowed the writ petition, directing that the mutation in favour of the petitioner be restored. The decision reaffirmed that revenue authorities must act on documents presented to them and cannot substitute a civil‑court determination of an award’s legality.

Issues considered

Whether a revenue authority can examine the validity of an arbitral award while processing a mutation application.
Whether the arbitration award dated 28 July 2001 is enforceable as a decree for purposes of land mutation.
Whether the petitioner's mutation can be granted despite alleged procedural irregularities in the arbitration agreement and award.
Whether the respondents are entitled to challenge the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 rather than before revenue officials.

Legislation cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 29, 34, 36
Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 — s. 3(2), 6(11)

Subjects

Arbitration
Arbitral award enforcement
Land mutation
Revenue law
Natural justice
Section 34 Arbitration Act
Section 29 Arbitration Act
Bihar Mutation Act
Writ of mandamus
Partition of property

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12893 of 2021
======================================================
Swapnil Shrestha Rai @ Sonam Rai D/o Late Pradip Rai, R/o Village-
Bilaspur, P.S.-Ram Nagar, District-West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land
Reform Department.
2. The Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah.
3. The Additional Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah.
4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Bagaha, West Champaran.
5. The Circle Officer, Ramanagar, West Champaran.
6. Ranjana Rai Wife of Late Alok Rai, R/o Village-Bilaspur, Police Station,
Ramnagar, District-West Champaran.
7. Rashmi Rai Wife of Anil Deo, C/o-Dr. Vishwanath Prasad Singh Resident of
Kargil By Pass Chowk, Dumara Road, Sitamarhi-843302

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. J.K. Verma, Advocate
Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Arya Achint, Advocate
Mr. Akshansh Shanker, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Kr. Srivastava, Advocate
Mr. Ravi Raj, Advocate
Mr. Ayansh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam (Aag12)
Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat, AC to AAG 12
For the Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
Mr. Rajnish Shandilya, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Pratik Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 14-05-2026
Heard Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma assisted by Mr. Arya

Achint, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioner,

Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur assisted by Mr. Rajnish Shandilya,

learned Advocates on behalf of respondent no. 6 and Mr. Pratik

Kumar, learned Advocate on behalf of respondent no. 7.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12893 of 2021 dt.14-05-2026
2/20

2. The present writ petition has been filed for grant of

following reliefs:

i. For issuance of a writ/s, an order/s, a
direction/sin the nature of mandamus for
commanding the respondents to set aside the order
dated 15.02.2021, passed By the Learned Chairman,
Bihar Land Tribunal at Patna, in B.L.T. Case Number
188 of 2019, whereby the Chairman was pleased to
uphold the order dated 31.10.2018 passed in
Mutation Revision Case No. 38 of 2016-17, passed
by the Additional Collector, West Champaran at
Bettiah.
ii. For directing the respondents to set aside
the order dated 31.10.2018 passed, Ld. Additional
Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah in Mutation
Revision case No. 38 of 2017-18, whereby he has
dismissed the said Mutation Revision Case.
iii. For directing the respondents to set
aside the order dated 28.02.2017 passed by Deputy
Collector land Reforms, Bagaha, West Champaran in
Mutation Appeal No. 15 of 2016-17, whereby by
allowing the said appeal had set aside the order dated
11.05.2016 passed by Circle Officer, Ramanagar,
West Champaran in Mutation Case No. 109 of 2016-
17.
iv. For directing the respondents to
maintain Status-Quo in respect to the mutation of the
property in dispute and keep the mutation of the
aforesaid property in abeyance till this matter is
subjudice before this Hon'ble court.
v. And for any other relief/s for which the
petitioner is found to be entitled under the provision
of law involved in the present case.

3. The case of the petitioner is that she is the daughter-

in-law of late Harendra Rai @ Chulbul Rai, who had three sons
Patna High Court CWJC No.12893 of 2021 dt.14-05-2026
3/20

namely, Deepak Rai, Pradeep Rai and Alok Rai and one daughter

namely, Rashmi Rai. The petitioner is the daughter of Pradeep Rai,

since deceased and the petitioner is the only heir of late Pradeep

Rai.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that an amicable

partition took place on 28.07.2001, between the heirs of late

Harendra Rai @ Chulbul Rai, while he was alive and a deed of

settlement was prepared and signed by the elder sister of late

Harendra Rai @ Chulbul Rai, however, after the death of Harendra

Rai @ Chulbul Rai, his successors ignored the earlier deed of

settlement dated 28.07.2001 and referred the said matter to

panchayti/arbitration. The cousins of late Harendra Rai @ Chulbul

Rai were appointed as arbitrators/panch through an agreement in

the form of affidavit sworn on 14.05.2015, by the petitioner being

the successor of the branch of Pradeep Rai, Ranjana Rai being the

widow representing the branch of Alok Rai and Rashmi Rai,

daughter of late Harendra Rai @ Chulbul Rai. The case of

petitioner is that such agreement was a valid arbitration agreement

as all branches of late Harendra Rai @ Chulbul Rai, by virtue of

the affidavit sworn, had appointed panches or arbitrators namely,

Dr. Shyam Kishore Rai, Krishna Mohan Rai, Malay Rai, Anil Rai,
Patna High Court CWJC No.12893 of 2021 dt.14-05-2026
4/20

Subhash Rai and Rajesh Rai to decide the matter of partition in

respect to the estate of late Harendra Rai @ Chulbul Rai.

5. The further case of the petitioner is that the arbitrators

after hearing the said arbitration jointly decided and gave a

panchayati award duly signed by all the panches, who were

appointed with the consent of the parties. The said award was not

challenged by any party in any court, rather all the parties accepted

the same and accordingly the award was acted upon. The petitioner

came in exclusive possession over the land allotted to her through

the said award.

6. The petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid

settlement/arbitration award applied for mutation of her name with

respect to the property which was allotted to the petitioner and

over which she had exclusive possession. The Mutation Case No.

109 of 2016-17 was initiated before Circle Office, Ramnagar, West

Champaran, who after due inquiry found the contentions of the

petitioner correct and allowed the mutation in favour of the

petitioner vide Order dated 11.05.2016.

7. The petitioner has further contended that the

respondent no. 6 namely, Ranjana Rai, who herself had appointed

the arbitrator and, who herself had been a party to the arbitration

proceeding of panchayti had never challenged the arbitration
Patna High Court CWJC No.12893 of 2021 dt.14-05-2026
5/20

award. However, all of a sudden she filed a mutation appeal before

the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR), Bagaha, West

Champaran vide Mutation Appeal No. 15 of 2016-17. It is

contended that the DCLR ignoring the fact that the respondent no.

6 was not entitled to file any appeal before the DCLR rather she

should have challenged the award under the provisions of

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as

the ‘Act’), and without appreciating the facts and position of law

allowed the appeal and set aside the order of mutation passed by

the Circle Officer, Ramnagar, West Champaran.

8. The petitioner being aggrieved by such order

preferred a Mutation Revision Case No. 38 of 2017-18 before the

Additional Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah against the order

dated 28.02.2017 passed by the DCLR, Bagaha, West Champaran

in Mutation Appeal No. 15 of 2016-17. However, without

appreciation of the facts and the law, even the Mutation Revision

application was dismissed.

9. The petitioner being aggrieved by the dismissal of the

Revision application, preferred an application before the Bihar

Land Tribunal, Patna vide B.L.T. Case No. 188 of 2019 for setting

aside the order dated 31.10.2018, passed in the Mutation Revision

Case No. 38 of 2017-18 and also the appellate order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.12893 of 2021 dt.14-05-2026
6/20

28.02.2017, passed by the DCLR, Bagaha, West Champaran.

However, even the Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna dismissed the

aforesaid application and upheld the order dated 31.10.2018,

passed by the Additional Collector, West Champaran in Mutation

Revision Case No. 38 of 2017-18.

10. Being aggrieved by the said dismissal of the said

Bihar Land Tribunal Case, the petitioner has approached this court

by way of present writ application, challenging the impugned

orders.

11. Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that he is primarily

aggrieved by the fact that the Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna, while

deciding a dispute of mutation entry cannot travel upon the issue

of validity of an award passed under the Act. It has been submitted

that from perusal of the impugned order passed by the Bihar Land

Tribunal, Patna, it would appear that the Bihar Land Tribunal,

Patna has tested the genuineness of the award while deciding the

application of the petitioner, which was meant only for mutation

based on such award. Mr. Verma, while referring to the impugned

order, has pointed out that the Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna has

discussed the contentions raised by the respondent no. 6 with

regard to the various irregularities in the award, like the signatures
Patna High Court CWJC No.12893 of 2021 dt.14-05-2026
7/20

of all the panches were not on the award and the award was

prepared and notorized first then the signatures of six panches

thereon were obtained. Taking all these factors of deficiency in the

award, the Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna, in paragraph no. 13,

observed as under :

“…………… this peculiarity to my mind is
most vital which goes to root of the matter. All these
circumstances appearing on the face of the Annexure-2
and make it quite doubtful and suspicious and hence it
is not fit to be acted upon.”

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that as far as the point of non-signing of the award by all

the panches, the same cannot be a criteria to disbelieve the award

as Section 29 of the Act provides for majority of the members

signing and it is not binding that all the members should sign the

award. It has been contented that the award shall be binding on all

the parties and, if any challenge is made with regard to its legality,

the same can be done only before a proper forum as provided

under Section 34 of the Act.

13. Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that as far as the

claim by respondent nos. 6 and 7 that they were not given an

opportunity of hearing as the order was passed in haste without

waiting for their appearance is concerned, the same is also not
Patna High Court CWJC No.12893 of 2021 dt.14-05-2026
8/20

tenable in law as the principal of natural justice is to be seen and

noted in cases where the prejudice caused to the person, who is

alleging violation of natural justice, has also to be taken note of.

Mr. Verma has referred to a judgment reported in (2021) 19 SCC

706 in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Sudhir Kumar

Singh & Ors., wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed

that natural justice is a flexible tool in the hands of the judiciary to

reach out in fit cases to remedy injustice. The breach of the audi

alteram partem rule cannot by itself, without more, lead to the

conclusion that prejudice is thereby caused.

14. Referring to the counter affidavit, Mr. Jitendra

Kishore Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submits that the respondent no. 7, who has appeared and

filed a counter affidavit in the present case has stated in paragraph

no. 3 onwards that she was not aware of either the award or the

mutation cases pending before the authorities prior to the present

case. It has been pointed out that the respondent no. 7, namely,

Rashmi Rai had appeared before the court of DCLR in Mutation

Appeal Case No. 15 of 2016-17 and she had even filed a reply in

the same and she had supported the case of the appellant therein

i.e. Ranjana Rai and had requested for setting aside of the order

passed by the Circle Officer, Ramnagar, West Champaran. It has
Patna High Court CWJC No.12893 of 2021 dt.14-05-2026
9/20

thus been stated that in the counter affidavit, the respondent no. 7

has not come out clean before this Court and has tried to suppress

the material fact that she had full knowledge of the case since the

mutation appeal was filed by the respondent no. 6, Ranjana Rai.

15. It has also been contended that the respondent no. 7,

Rashmi Rai never challenged the earlier order passed by the Circle

Officer, Ramnagar, West Champaran, and therefore, she cannot

raise any complaint with regard to the passing of the said order

here before this Court.

16. The arguments has thus been summarized that the

DCLR, Bagaha, West Champaran as well as the Additional

Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah and the Bihar Land Tribunal,

Patna, all have erred in going into the legality of the award and has

refused the mutation in favour of the petitioner on such ground and

the same is not tenable and the writ application is fit to be allowed.

17. Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur, the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of respondent no. 6 submits that from perusal

of the arbitration agreement, it would be evident that there is no

signature of heirs of Alok Rai, as he had also two children at the

relevant time. It has been contended that since the two children of

late Alok Rai were necessary parties, therefore, the notarized

agreement is not tenable in law and, therefore, cannot form basis
Patna High Court CWJC No.12893 of 2021 dt.14-05-2026
10/20

for mutation in favour of the petitioner. It has further been

contended that Section 6(11) of the Bihar Mutation Act, 2011, bars

mutation on a partition, if the same is not by court and also if the

consent of all co-sharers are not there. The learned counsel for the

respondent no. 6 contends that there is no partition by court of law

and moreover, the consent of co-sharers namely, Diksha Rai and

Divyanshu Rai, who are daughter and son of late Alok Rai having

not given their consent, the same cannot be taken into account.

18. The learned counsel further submits that from

perusal of the order of the Circle Officer, Ramnagar, it would be

evident that he has taken into account that on the said partition

document there is signature of all the co-sharers which is a wrong

fact on which the mutation orders have been passed. It has been

contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent no. 6 that from para-2 of the order dated 28.02.2017 of

the DCLR, Bagaha, it would be evident that the notice was pasted

on the walls of the appellant/Ranjana Rai on 12.05.2016, while the

order granting the mutation in favour of the petitioner was passed

on 11.05.2016, which goes on to show that there was no proper

service of notice and, therefore, any order without service of notice

upon the relevant party could not be allowed to perpetuate.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12893 of 2021 dt.14-05-2026
11/20

19. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent no. 6 has vehemently contended that the agreement

itself becomes doubtful as conspicuously no share has been

granted to the respondent no. 7, Rashmi Rai in the said agreement.

It has further been submitted that there is no relinquishment in the

said affidavit or award and it has also not been taken care of that

Diksha Rai and Divyanshu Rai, who are the daughter and son of

late Alok Rai respectively were separate entities and even their

signatures are missing on the said document. Raising the other

questions with regard to the award, the learned counsel contends

that the award was signed only by six members, whereas the total

number of panches were eight and even the fixing of eight

panches was against the law, as the panches should be in odd

number and not in even number as in this case.

20. It has thus been contended by the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of respondent no. 6 that this court cannot

examine the disputed question of facts and this court also does not

have the jurisdiction and power to enforce the award and get it

implemented through a writ application. It has also been contended

that for any mutation entry in favour of the petitioner, the fact of

possession is an essential ingredient and the respondent no. 6

denies any possession in favour of the petitioner and therefore, in
Patna High Court CWJC No.12893 of 2021 dt.14-05-2026
12/20

all possibility, mutation entry in favour of the petitioner could not

have been allowed. It has been submitted that the award is being

tried to be implemented through the mutation entries, which is not

permissible in law. It has been submitted that Section 36 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, only says that arbitral

award shall be enforced under C.P.C. in the same manner as a

decree of the court, which means award shall be enforced i.e. made

effective a decree of the court and for that provision for execution

of decree under the C.P.C. shall be applicable. It has been

submitted that the alleged arbitral award dated 28.07.2001, was

never acted upon therefore, the very document has lost its

genuineness and sanctity and in the garb of getting the same

enforced, the petitioners were trying to get it implemented through

the mutation proceedings. It has been submitted that the present

writ application is fit to be dismissed.

21. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent

no. 7 submits that the petitioner being the daughter of late Pradeep

Rai, who happens to be the full brother of respondent no.7 and

respondent no. 6 is the widow of late Alok Rai, who also happens

to be the brother of respondent no. 7 and therefore, the respondent

no. 7 has inheritable right in the entire ancestral property of her

father by virtue of succession as Class-I heir. It has been submitted
Patna High Court CWJC No.12893 of 2021 dt.14-05-2026
13/20

that the respondent no. 7 was not aware of any arbitral award or

the mutation orders passed in favour of the writ petitioner nor the

subsequent successful challenges made by the respondent no. 6

and only recently she came to know about the pendency of the

proceedings when she had received the dasti notice. It has been

submitted that the writ petitioners have created a fake affidavit

dated 14.05.2015 (Annexure-1) for the purposes of appointment of

arbitrators, which purportedly bears signature of this respondent. It

has been submitted on behalf of respondent no. 7 that she had been

asked to put her signature on a blank sheet, which was purportedly

to be made before the Circle Officer for succession mutation and

she had never appeared before the notary public and sworn any

affidavit for the purpose of appointment of arbitrator. It has been

submitted that the notarized document i.e. Annexure-1 is a

manufactured document and the contents of the said affidavit was

never made in her presence. It has been contended that as

respondent no. 7 was not aware of the said documents and

therefore, for want of knowledge, she had no occasion to challenge

the same before proper forum. It has been submitted that the

arbitral award is not a valid document and cannot have legal

sanctity and the same is contrary to the mandatory provision of the

Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended in the year 2005. It has
Patna High Court CWJC No.12893 of 2021 dt.14-05-2026
14/20

been submitted that in the arbitration agreement or the consequent

award, there is no mention of the fact that the respondent no. 7 had

ever relinquished her inheritable right in the vested in the property

in favour of either the petitioner or the respondent no. 6, and

therefore, the partition of the entire property among the only two

co-parceners, living aside the respondent no. 7 without her

relinquishment of right cannot be said to be legal. It has thus been

prayed that since the arbitration award is void, illegal and non est

in law and is not fit to be acted upon, therefore, any subsequent

action pursuant to such award cannot be justified.

22. The other arguments forwarded by the learned

counsel for the respondent no. 6 has been duly adopted by the

learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 7.

23. The learned AC to AAG-12 referring to the counter

affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 5 submits that

the order passed by the Circle Officer, Ramnagar was not in

accordance with law as laid down in Mutation Act, and therefore,

the appellate authority has rightly set aside the same and the said

order has been rightly upheld by the Revisional authority as also

the Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna. It has been submitted that since

there is no illegality in the orders impugned, therefore, the present

writ petition is fit to be dismissed in limine.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12893 of 2021 dt.14-05-2026
15/20

24. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the respective pleadings, this court finds that the main

question which needs to be decided in the present case is as to

whether the application of the petitioner for getting the mutation in

their favour for the land allotted to them on the basis of an award

can be entertained?

25. From the arguments which has been forwarded, one

fact which emerges is that the award is based on an affidavit sworn

by three persons namely, Swapnil Shreshtha Rai @ Sonam Rai,

Ranjana Rai and Rashmi Rai, who had agreed for appointment of

eight persons as panch pursuant thereto an award was passed by

the panch, which is contained in Annexure-2.

26. The contention of the respondent parties is that the

said affidavit was falsely created subsequent to an undertaking

made earlier, which got notarized later in the year 2015 and any

award passed on the basis of such affidavit cannot be taken into

account for creating mutation entries in favour of any of the

parties. The contention of the petitioner that an award has the force

of a decree of a Civil Court and the same cannot be challenged

before the Revenue authorities has been opposed by the

respondent nos. 6 and 7 on the ground that the petitioner is trying

to get the award implemented in the garb of mutation entries.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12893 of 2021 dt.14-05-2026
16/20

27. It is a settled law that an award passed under the Act,

if being challenged, as it would appear from the arguments

forwarded by the parties, the same can be done only through a

challenge before a competent Civil Court under Section 34 of the

Act.

28. The sum and substance of the arguments of

respondent nos. 6 and 7 is that the mutation entries cannot be

permitted based on such award, however, as the law for mutation

is very clear that the mutation has to be done as contained in Sub-

Section (2) of Section 3 of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011.

29. In view of such statutory provision, I see no reason

as to how a Revenue authority cannot allow a mutation entry as the

question of the award being not correct or obtained through fraud

or after making interpolation or even their genuineness can only be

tested by a competent Civil Court and not by a Revenue authority.

30. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in Inderjit Singh

Grewal vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in (2011) 12 SCC

588 and in various judgments, very clearly observed that a

Revenue authority does not have jurisdiction to travel into the

question of genuineness of a document and, therefore, any

mutation entry based on a legal document has to be entertained

and, therefore, the findings arrived by the Revisional authority as
Patna High Court CWJC No.12893 of 2021 dt.14-05-2026
17/20

well as Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna, in my view is not the correct

law.

31. One argument was raised by the respondent nos. 6

and 7 that no proper service of notice was made prior to passing of

the mutation order in favour of the petitioner by the Circle Officer,

Ramnagar will also render the said order illegal. At this juncture,

the reliance placed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner on the judgment passed in the case of State of Uttar

Pradesh Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh and Ors. reported in (2021) 19

SCC 706, needs to be taken note of where the court in para 42 has

observed as under :

“42. An analysis of the aforesaid
judgments thus reveals:
42.1 Natural justice is a flexible tool in the
hands of the judiciary to reach out in fit cases to
remedy injustice. The breach of the audi alteram
partem rule cannot by itself, without more, lead to the
conclusion that prejudice is thereby caused.
42.2 Where procedural and/or substantive
provisions of law embody the principles of natural
justice, their infraction per se does not lead to
invalidity of the orders passed. Here again, prejudice
must be caused to the litigant, except in the case of a
mandatory provision of law which is conceived not
only in individual interest, but also in public interest.
42.3 No prejudice is caused to the person
complaining of the breach of natural justice where
such person does not dispute the case against him or
it. This can happen by reason of estoppel,
acquiescence, waiver and by way of non-challenge or
non-denial or admission of facts, in cases in which the
Court finds of facts that no real prejudice can
therefore be said to have been caused to the person
complaining of the breach of natural justice.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12893 of 2021 dt.14-05-2026
18/20

42.4 In cases where facts can be stated to
be admitted or indisputable, and only one conclusion
is possible, the Court does not pass futile orders of
setting aside or remand when there is, in fact, no
prejudice caused. This conclusion must be drawn by
the Court on an appraisal of the facts of a case, and
not by the authority who denies natural justice to a
person.
42.5 The “prejudice” exception must be
more than a mere apprehension or even a reasonable
suspicion of a litigant. It should exist as a matter of
fact, or be based upon a definite inference of
likelihood of prejudice flowing from the non-
observance of natural justice.

32. Taking this aforesaid judgment into account and

apply to the present facts and circumstances of this case, the

contentions of respondent nos. 6 and 7 has been consistent with

regard to the fact that they had not been a party to the award and

the same is illegal, however, what prejudice was caused on

account of non-service of notice, prior to the mutation entries, has

not been shown by the respondent nos. 6 and 7. This court even

travel beyond and assumes that if the respondent nos. 6 and 7

would have appeared they would have still opposed the mutation

entries on the ground that the award was not correct and it was

prepared behind their back and, therefore, the same cannot be

taken into account for mutation entries.

33. The question ultimately would still remain as to

whether the Revenue authority could have tested the genuineness

of the award prior to passing the orders for mutation entries. As
Patna High Court CWJC No.12893 of 2021 dt.14-05-2026
19/20

already observed hereinabove the revenue authority cannot test the

veracity of any document and they have to act merely on the said

document and if any party objects to mutation entries, challenging

the legality of the document, then the only remedy which lies

before the party who challenges the document is before a Civil

Court of competent jurisdiction and not a Revenue authority.

34. Thus, this court concurs with the submissions made

by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent nos. 6

and 7 have not been able to show prejudice caused to them on

account of non-service of notice and moreover their objection to

the mutation entries was based upon challenging the legality of the

award on which the mutation entries were being done.

35. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this court finds

that the order directing for mutation entries in favour of the

petitioner was legal and all the subsequent orders whereby the

authorities have set aside the mutation entries in favour of the

petitioner has been passed ignoring the settled law that a Revenue

authority does not go into the question of legality of any

document, which forms basis of the mutation entries and,

therefore, this court does not has any hesitation in holding that all

the orders impugned have been passed ignoring the settled

principal of law and therefore, they are fit to be set aside.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12893 of 2021 dt.14-05-2026
20/20

36. The order dated 15.02.2021 passed by the Chairman,

Bihar Land Tribunal at Patna in B.L.T. Case No. 188 of 2019, the

order dated 31.10.2018 passed by the Additional Collector, West

Champaran at Bettiah in Mutation Revision Case No. 38 of 2017-

18 and the order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the Deputy Collector

Land Reforms, Bagha, West Champaran in Mutation Appeal No.

15 of 2016-17 are, accordingly, set aside.

37. The writ petition is hereby allowed.

(Sourendra Pandey, J)
krishna/deepak
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 18.05.2026
Transmission Date NA

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.