Patna High Court
Amar Kumar PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, East, Muzaffarpur to hear the parties and pass a mutation order within three months.
Summary
The petitioner, Amar Kumar Paswan, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the revenue authorities to mutate a parcel of land in his favour, asserting that a Title Appeal (No. 19 of 2011) had granted his vendor absolute title and that a sale deed dated 15 March 2021 transferred the land to him. The Circle Officer, Mushari, rejected the mutation application on the ground that the Jamabandi was running in favour of the State, an order the petitioner alleged was mala fide. The petitioner also filed a petition before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, which remained pending. The court noted that no appeal against the Title Appeal order had been filed by the State and that the Deputy Collector was duty‑bound to conclude the pending mutation matter without undue delay. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition, directing the Deputy Collector to hear all parties and pass a mutation order within three months of the petitioner's fresh application, rather than granting the writ.
Issues considered
- Whether the Circle Officer's order rejecting the mutation application is legally valid and can be set aside.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to mutation of the land in his favour based on the Title Appeal and sale deed.
- Whether the Deputy Collector Land Reforms should be directed to expedite the pending mutation application.
Subjects
- mutation
- land revenue
- title suit
- mandamus
- administrative law
- Bihar
- land reforms
- pending petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4903 of 2026
======================================================
Amar Kumar Paswan Son of Late Musafir Paswan, Resident of Village-
Nazirpur, P.S.- Ahiyapur, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Land and Revenue
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Muzaffarpur.
4. The Additional Collector, Muzaffarpur.
5. The D.C.L.R., East, Muzaffarpur.
6. The Circle Officer, Mushari, Muzaffarpur.
7. Sri Sudhanshu Shekhar, Son of not known, the then Circle Officer, Mushari,
Muzaffarpur.
8. Sri Krishna Kumar, Son of not known, the present D.C.L.R., East,
Muzaffarpur.
9. Sri Jay Chandra Yadav, Son of not known, the then D.C.L.R., East,
Muzaffarpur.
10. Sri Sanjay Kumar, Son of not known, D.C.L.R., East, Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, AAG-5
Mr. Vishwambhar Prasad, AC to AAG-5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 20-04-2026 Heard Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Vishwambhar Prasad
2. The present application has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
(i) For issuance of a writ in the
nature of mandamus directing the concerned
respondents to mutate the land as fully
described in Para-8, 9 & 10 of the instant
Patna High Court CWJC No.4903 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
2/5
writ application in favour of the petitioner in
view of the facts that by virtue of judgment
and decree dated 08.11.2019 passed in Title
Appeal No.19/2011 the vendor of the
petitioner has got absolute right, title and
possession over the land and new Jamabandi
No.376, 377 and 378 was created in favour
of the vendor of petitioner and though the
petitioner is in peaceful possession of the
land by virtue of valid sale deed and the
same was recommended for mutation in
favour of the petitioner by the Revenue
Karamchari but the Circle Officer, Mushari,
Muzaffarpur with malafide intention and
because of refusing to oblige him has
rejected the same on frivolous ground that
the Jamabandi is running in favour of State
Government by order dated 23.10.2021
passed in Mutation Case No.1433 R27/2021-
22, 1436 R27/2021-22 and 1377 R27/2021-
22.
(ii) For setting aside the order
dated 23.10.2021 passed in Mutation Case
No.1433 R27/2021-22, 1436 R27/2021-22
and 1377 R27/2021-22 passed by Circle
Officer, Mushari, Muzaffarpur and after
setting aside the same direct for mutating the
land in favour of the petitioner.
(iii) For other necessary
relief/reliefs to which the petitioner may be
Patna High Court CWJC No.4903 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
3/5
found entitled in the facts of the case.
3. The matter relates to a piece of land, details of
which is/are as under:
C.S. Khata No. 46;
CSP No- 113(P);
R.S. Khata No. 193;
RSP No.- 464;
Area- 3 Acre 82 decimal at Village-
Bakhari Chandan in the district of Muzaffarpur.
4. The plaintiff including the Bhola Rai (from whom
the petitioner claims to have purchased the lands) filed Title Suit
No. 152 of 2004 (Ram Bilas Bhagat & ors. vs. State) which
went against them vide an order dated 29.11.2011 (Annexure-1
to the petition).
5. Aggrieved, the Title Appeal No. 19 of 2011 was
preferred which was allowed and the order dated 21.11.2011 in
Title Suit No. 152 of 2004 was set aside (Annexure-2 to the
petition).
6. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequently by
sale deeds, on 15.03.2021, 12 decimal, 53 and 52 decimal
(totaling 117 decimal) was/were purchased from Bhola Rai as
also Phool Kumari (they have not been made party respondent
in the case) and the submission before this Court is that the
Circle Officer rejected the application for mutation vide an order
Patna High Court CWJC No.4903 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
4/5
dated 23.10.2023 in Mutation Case No. 1377 R 27 of 2021-
22/Mushari.
7. Against the said rejection order, the petitioner
preferred appropriate petition before the Deputy Collector Land
Reforms, East, Muzaffarpur which according to him, is still
pending in his office.
8. Learned State Counsel submits that since the
petition is preferred before the DCLR, East, Muzaffarpur, it will
be taken to its logical conclusion.
9. This Court has recorded the entire facts of the case
which shows that after the Title Appeal No. 19 of 2011 (Ram
Bilas Bhagat & ors. vs. State of Bihar) was allowed where after
hearing all the parties including the State respondents on
08.11.2019, subsequently, Bhola Rai and Phool Kumar Devi
sold certain piece of land out of 3.82 decimal.
10. There is nothing on record to show and it is the
case of the petitioner that to his knowledge, the State has not
preferred any application against the said order passed in Title
Appeal No. 19 of 2011, in that background, after putting Bhola
Rai, Phool Kumari Devi, Ram Bilas Bhagat, Ashok Kumar
Singh, Dilip Kumar Singh and Hasni Devi/ their heirs, the
DCLR East, Muzaffarpur is duty-bound to take the matter to its
Patna High Court CWJC No.4903 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
5/5
logical conclusion. He/she cannot sit over the matter for an
indefinite period.
11. In that background and taking into account that no
order has been passed yet, as informed by learned counsel for
the petitioner, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is
disposed of directing the respondent no. 5, the Deputy Collector
Land Reforms, East, Muzaffarpur to take up the case, hear all
the parties, as recorded above including the State of Bihar and
pass a necessary order on the application preferred by the
petitioner preferably within a period of three months from the
date the petitioner prefers an application annexing the order
passed by this Court.
12. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid
observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…