IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.232 of 2001 Raj Deo Singh, Son of Ramadhar Singh, resident of village: Chausa, Police Station: Buxar (M), District: Buxar. ..... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Buxar. 3. Land Revenue Deputy Collector, Buxar. 4. The Circle Officer, Buxar, District: Buxar. 5. Fhulmati Devi, Wife of Kailash Prasad Sahu, resident of Village: Chausa, Police Station: Buxar (M), District: Buxar. ..... Respondents. ------ 04- 21.10.2008 Heard Mr. Rang Nath Choubey for the petitioner. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.7.2000 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned Collector of the district of Buxar, in Mutation Revision Case No.33 of 1996 (Rajdeo Singh and others Vs. Phulmati Devi and others), whereby his revision application with respect to mutation matter has been rejected on the ground that it involves issues relating to title of the land which can be decided by a Civil Court. 2. A summary of facts may be indicated. The present proceeding relates to Khesra no.1241, appertaining to Khata no.543, covering an area of 81 decimals, situate at village- Chausa, District- Buxar. The petitioner claims 2 to have purchased the land in question by a registered deed of absolute sale dated 19.4.1991, from one Amarendra Prasad. He filed an application for mutation which was allowed by order dated 15.6.1992 (Annexure-4), passed by the learned Anchal Adhikari, Buxar, in Mutation Case No. 346 of 1992-93. Aggrieved by the order, respondent no.5 preferred an appeal which has been allowed by the learned L.R.D.C., Buxar, passed in Case No.49 of 1992-93 (Phulmati Devi Vs. Rajdeo Singh), by his order dated 22.12.1995 (Annexure-2), on the ground that she has acquired title to the land in question by a deed of absolute sale dated 20.4.1988 from Satyadeo Prasad. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred revision application which has been rejected by the impugned order (Annexure-1). Hence this writ petition. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.5 had preferred appeal belatedly but the same was disposed of without considering the question of delay. He relies on the order of the Supreme Court in Gagandeep Pratishthan Pvt. Ltd. and 3 others Vs. Mechano and another, reported in (2002)1 S.C.C. 475. After the Mutation he has been consistently paying rent. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that respondent no.5 had already acquired title to the land in question by sale deed dated 20.4.1988, from Satydeo Prasad. The petitioner perhaps acquired title to the same land by a later sale deed dated 19.4.1991, from one Amarendra Prasad, a co-sharer. It thus prima- facie appears that respondent no.5 had already acquired title to the land in question. Therefore, it involves issues of title between the parties which can be decided only in a civil suit of competent jurisdiction. In view of the position that respondent no.5 had acquired title to the land in question by an earlier deed, the order of mutation in her favour cannot be faulted. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, the issue does not seem to have been raised either before the learned appellate authority or the learned revisional authority. 4 5. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It goes without saying that it will be open to the petitioner to institute a civil suit in a court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of title in accordance with law. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/