Patna High Court
Gayatri PandeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RANA VIKRAM SINGH
Holding
The Court held that the Circle Officer erred in issuing the mutation receipt to the objector and directed him to pass a fresh order effecting mutation in the petitioner's name, setting aside the earlier DCLR order.
Summary
Petitioner Gayatri Pandey filed a writ petition seeking issuance of a mutation receipt in her name for land in Jagdishpur, after the Circle Officer, despite an earlier order in her favour, issued the receipt to the objector. The petition arose from a rejected mutation application, an appeal to the DCLR which set aside the Circle Officer’s order and directed a fresh order, and a subsequent Circle Officer order that mistakenly recorded the receipt in the objector’s name. The State argued the mistake was inadvertent and could be rectified. The Court examined the records, noted the Circle Officer’s admission of error, and held that the earlier DCLR order could not stand. It directed the Circle Officer to pass a fresh, reasoned order effecting mutation in the petitioner’s name within three weeks, and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the Circle Officer’s issuance of a mutation receipt in the objector’s name, contrary to the DCLR’s direction, constitutes a jurisdictional error warranting correction.
- Whether the High Court can direct the revenue authorities to issue a mutation receipt in the petitioner’s name.
- Whether the order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the DCLR can be set aside.
Subjects
- mutation
- land revenue
- circle officer
- district collector
- writ jurisdiction
- error rectification
- land reforms
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8827 of 2026
======================================================
Gayatri Pandey wife of Chandeshwar Pandey, resident of village Jagdishpur,
Panda Toli, Ward No. 01, P.O and P.S Jagdishpur, District - Bhojpur.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through The Principal Secretory, Department of Revenue
and land Reforms Govt of Bihar
2. The Deputy collector Land Reforms, Jagdishpur, Bhojpur.
3. Anchal Adhikari, Jagdishpur, Bhojpur.
4. Pushpa Devi, Wife of Shambhu Pandey resident of village Jagdishpur, Ward
No. 02, P.O. and P.S. Jagdishpur, District Bhojpur.
5. Roshni Kumari Daughter of Shambhu Pandey resident of village Jagdishpur,
Ward No. 02, P.O. and P.S. Jagdishpur, District Bhojpur.
6. Jyoti Kumari, daughter of Shambhu Pandey resident of village Jagdishpur,
Ward No. 02, P.O. and P.S. Jagdishpur, District Bhojpur.
7. Golu Kumari, daughter of Shambhu Pandey resident of village Jagdishpur,
Ward No. 02, P.O. and P.S. Jagdishpur, District Bhojpur.
8. Kundan Pandey, Son of Shambhu Pandey resident of village Jagdishpur,
Ward No. 02, P.O. and P.S. Jagdishpur, District Bhojpur.
9. Ratan Pandey, Son of Shambhu Pandey resident of village Jagdishpur, Ward
No. 02, P.O. and P.S. Jagdishpur, District Bhojpur.
10. Sonu Kumar, son of Rajendra Prasad, resident of village Jagdishpur, Ward
No. 02, P.O. and P.S. Jagdishpur, District Bhojpur.
11. Chandan Kumar son of Late Vijay Kumar Singh, resident of Village Ugna,
P.S. - Jagdishpur, District - Bhojpur.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha, Sr. Adv., G.A.8
Ms. Seema Ghazala, A.C. to G.A.8
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 02-07-2026 Heard the parties.
2. At the very outset, Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha, learned
G.A.8 appearing on behalf of the State submits that in
compliance of the last order dated 29.06.2026 he spoke to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8827 of 2026(3) dt.02-07-2026
2/5
concerned Circle Officer, Jagdishpur (Bhojpur), whose order is
under assail before this Court. On instruction, learned Senior
Counsel submits that the Circle Officer, Jagdishpur candidly
admits that he has committed some error in recording the name
of the parties, which might have crept in inadvertently on
account of some confusion with respect to the nomenclature of
the name of the parties. He further points out that in this view of
the matter, if the order is taken to be as it is as of today, then the
petitioner is entitled to all relief as prayed, but the sheer
inadvertent mistake may be allowed to be rectified by the Circle
Officer, Jagdishpur in a proceeding which he might initiate after
the direction of this Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner also submits that initially he filed an application for
mutation before the Circle Officer, Jagdishpur vide mutation
case no. 1863 of 2024-25, but against the weight of evidence the
Circle Officer, Jagdishpur vide order dated 07.01.2025 rejected
his application for mutation of the land in question as detailed
hereinbelow:
Khata No. Plot No. Area
461 1483 0 acre, 45.625 Dec, 0 hectare
461 1484 0 acre, 23 Dec, 0 hectare
461 1485 0 acre, 27.75 Dec, 0 hectare
Situated in Mauja Jagdishpur, Revenue Thana No. 241, District
Patna High Court CWJC No.8827 of 2026(3) dt.02-07-2026
3/5
Bhojpur. Aggrieved by that order of the Circle Officer, he
preferred a Mutation Appeal before the DCLR, Jagdishpur vide
Mutation Appeal No. 1414 of 2025-26 which was heard and
disposed off by DCLR, Jagdishpur vide order dated 31.12.2025
whereby he allowed the appeal of the petitioner and set aside the
order passed by Circle Officer, Jagdishpur with a direction to
him to pass a proper and fresh order on the application of
petitioner for mutation strictly in accordance with the
documents available on record and that too after verifying it
from the revenue records.
4. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner approached the
Circle Officer, Jagdishpur, praying for the mutation of the
aforesaid land in his name. The Circle Officer, Jagdishpur while
passing the order dated 29.01.2026 in Mutation Case No. 2629
of 2025-26 recorded the finding in favour of the petitioner and
as it appears from the order impugned that he has even issued
direction for the mutation of the land in favour of the petitioner.
Surprisingly enough, in compliance of the aforesaid order the
mutation receipt was issued in the name of objector which has
given an occasion to the petitioner to approach this Court
directly in the writ jurisdiction, with a prayer to direct the
concerned authorities to issue a mutation receipt in his name for
Patna High Court CWJC No.8827 of 2026(3) dt.02-07-2026
4/5
which the order has already been passed in his favour by the
competent authority, i.e., Circle Officer, Jagdishpur in view of
the direction issued by the DCLR, Jagdishpur under order dated
31.12.2025.
5. Heard the parties and perused the records. If the
Court goes by the documents available on record, no option will
be left but to issue a direction to the concerned authorities for
issuance of the mutation receipt in the name of the petitioner.
Since Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the State, at the request of the Court,
took instruction from the Circle Officer, Jagdishpur who very
fairly and candidly accepted that he has committed some
mistake which is inadvertent and bonafide in nature, so he may
be accorded permission to rectify the same.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions made on
behalf of the learned counsel by respective parties and on
perusal of the records, it appears that the petitioner has made out
a case before the DCLR, Jagdishpur to get mutation in his name
and thereafter Circle Officer, Jagdishpur though have recorded
findings in his favour, but has granted mutation receipt in the
name of the object or both appears to be dichotomous. In these
circumstances, the order impugned dated 31.12.2025 cannot be
Patna High Court CWJC No.8827 of 2026(3) dt.02-07-2026
5/5
sustained and is accordingly set aside and the learned Circle
Officer, Jagdishpur is hereby directed to pass a fresh order
considering the case and document of the petitioner and that too
keeping in mind the findings recorded by DCLR, Jagdishpur
and pass a fresh and positive order with respect to the mutation
application so filed on behalf of the petitioner.
7. It is needless to say that the petitioner will not file
any further fresh application. The application which has already
been filed before the Circle Officer, Jagdishpur will have to be
adjudicated afresh by passing necessary, proper and reasoned
order within three weeks henceforth after having heard all the
necessary parties concerned. This writ application stands
disposed off, accordingly.
8. All pending interlocutory application(s), if any,
stand/s disposed off.
Smriti/ (Rana Vikram Singh, J)
Supratim-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.