THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK
Ranchi, June 24: In a significant order, the Jharkhand High Court has directed the Hehal Circle Officer to reprocess a mutation application submitted by petitioner Jitendra Kumar. If the officer fails to act within two weeks of receiving the court’s order, he will be personally liable to pay a cost of ₹50,000 to the petitioner.
The case pertains to a piece of land measuring 0.37 acre located in Mouza-Bajra under Khata No. 113, Plot No. 16, Thana No. 140. Jitendra Kumar had sought mutation of this land in his name, following its original purchase by his father through a registered sale deed on March 15 1971 from one Md. Ashique, son of Haji Israil Saha. The land was subsequently recorded in the name of Kumar’s father, Munna Bhagat, through Mutation Case No. 52R27/72-73, with rent receipts indicating continued lawful possession and payment to the State.
However, the mutation application was rejected on December 13 2024, by the Circle Officer, Hehal, without any clear justification, despite the jamabandi (land record) still running in the name of Kumar’s father.
Earlier, Kumar had approached the court, which resulted in a directive for a reasoned order. However, the same concerns remained unresolved.
During the latest hearing, counsel for the State argued that the petitioner had a statutory remedy under Section 15 of the Jharkhand Tenant Holding Maintenance of Record Act, 1973. The court, however, held that “in the writ petition, alternative remedy is self-imposed restrictions and it cannot be rejected on maintainability, when there are pulpable error in the impugned order.”
Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed: “It is evident from the materials on record that the land in question was purchased by the father of the petitioner by way of registered sale deed and after the said purchase, it was duly mutated in his name and jamabandi was opened and rent was paid. There is no mention in the impugned order that the said jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner was cancelled at any point of time.
Under the circumstance, the Circle Officer, Hehal could not have reopened the matter when the son of the jamabandi raiyat moved the Revenue Authority for mutation. The reason that has been assigned for rejection in the order of mutation is perverse.”
Accordingly, the court passed the following direction: “The Circle Officer, Hehal (respondent no. 4) is directed to pass order afresh within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which, the Circle Officer, Hehal will be individually liable to pay a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner. The said amount will be realizable as a money decree passed by civil court. The cost is not punitive in nature, but is only intended to see that the petitioner is not to run from pillar to post for a simple order from a competent authority.”
The order brings much-needed relief to the petitioner after a protracted legal journey for recognition of lawful ownership in government records.
Also Read: BJP stages statewide protest in Jharkhand over governance, public welfare issues
Other Similar Anomalies in Jharkhand
This is not an isolated case. The Jharkhand High Court has highlighted several irregularities in mutation and rent record processes across the state:
- Koderma gaushala case – A Circle Officer wrongly cancelled rent receipts due to suspicion over a sale deed from the 1950s, despite mutation entries being valid. The court noted that revenue officers have no authority to question title, only possession.
- Anant Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand – The Court held that mutation entries (jamabandi) confer legitimate rights; authorities cannot refuse to accept rent purely because a lease expired.
- Damri Ram Singh v. State of Jharkhand – Petitioners paid rent for years after a lawful registered sale and mutation. A Circle Officer abruptly stopped issuing receipts and cancelled their entry without hearing, prompting court intervention.
- Rohit Anand’s challenge – The High Court criticised a Circle Officer’s excessive reliance on lower-tier staff (halka karamcharis), noting over 1,000 pending mutation cases that were stalled due to bureaucratic apathy.
What This Reveals
- Mutation unjustly cancelled: Courts have repeatedly reprimanded Circle Officers for cancelling registrations without proper process or due cause.
- Possession over title matters: The revenue record relies on physical possession, not disputed titles. Mutation entries are meant for fiscal purposes and not title adjudication.
- Widespread procedural lapses: Overburdened officers, reliance on subordinate staff, and opaque decision-making have led to numerous flawed entries and cancellations.
Why It Impacts You
These anomalies affect millions of farmers and tenants who rely on accurate land records. Unjust cancellations or refusal to accept rent can lead to:
- Loss of land rights
- Barriers to compensation or legal remedies
- Unnecessary court battles
The High Court’s recent action against the Hehal Circle Officer is a crucial reminder: mutation and rent recording are legal entitlements, and officials who flout the rules risk strict consequences.
