Ratnaker Bhengra JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the private respondents, who were the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 4232 of 1995(P).
2. The appellants herein, claiming to be the 16 anna raiyats of Mouza Billari in the district of Godda, have challenged the order dated 13.10.2003, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court, in C.W.J.C. No. 4232 of 1995(P), whereby the Hon'ble Single Judge has allowed the writ application, quashing the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, and also the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, cancelling the mutation of the land in dispute, done in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners (private respondents herein), as far back as in 1972, vide Mutation Case No. 62/1971-72.
3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The dispute relates to 6 Bighas 14 Kathas and 2 Dhurs of land in Jamabandi No. 16 of Mouza Billari in the district of Godda. The disputed land was originally recorded in the name of one Mostt. Champa, wife of Bhukhan Chamar, in the last survey settlement record. Mostt. Champa died issueless in the year 1937 and the land become a Fauti land. As it is a Pradhani village, it was claimed by the writ petitioners that the land was settled by the Pradhan, with one Bhelu Harijan and Rohin Harijan, who were of the same community of the said village and the rent was also fixed by the Pradhan. After the death of Bhelu Harijan, his son Raju Harijan and Rohit Harijan filed an application before the Circle Officer, Godda, for mutating the land and opening of Khata in their names. The Circle Officer after holding an inquiry mutated the land in favour of Raju Harijan, son of Bhelu Harijan, vide mutation case No. 62 of 1971-72. The writ petitioners, claiming to be the legal heirs and successors of Raju Harijan, claimed that they were in possession of the land and exercised all acts of possession without any objection from any person. The grievance of the writ petitioners was that all of a sudden, in the year 1990, on the basis of a report, submitted by the Circle Officer, Godda, the Sub Divisional Officer, Godda, initiated a proceeding for cancellation of the order of mutation done in the year 1972, and the impugned order of cancellation of the mutation was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Godda, which was affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, in appeal, and also by the Commissioner of Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, in revision filed against the order. Aggrieved by these orders, the writ petitioners filed C.W.J.C. No. 4232 of 1995 before the then Hon'ble Patna High Court.
4. During the pendency of the writ application, the appellants herein, intervened in the said writ application and vide order dated 6.1.1998, they were allowed to intervene and they were also allowed to file counter affidavit, maintaining the status quo between the petitioners and interveners. After bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the said writ petition stood transferred to Jharkhand High Court and it was finally heard and allowed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, vide order dated 13.10.2003. Appellants herein, are aggrieved by the fact that at the time of disposal of the said writ application, they were not given the hearing in the case and without hearing them, the Hon'ble Single Judge allowed the said writ application. It is the case of the appellants that the land in question was wrongly mutated in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners and in fact, the intervener appellants are in possession over the land in dispute.
5. Before entering into the rival contentions of the respective parties, it would be appropriate to take note of the findings given by the Hon'ble Single Judge, while allowing the writ application. The Hon'ble Single Judge has found that the Circle Officer, while submitting his report in the year 1990, as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application, had stated that during inquiry he had interrogated the Pradhan of the village, who confirmed that the land in question was settled ........