IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11641 of 2010 1. RAMDEV KUSHWAHA 2. LAXMAN MANDAL …PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHAGALPUR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHAGALPUR 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, BHAGALPUR SADAR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, SULTANGANJ, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR 5. MANIK BIND, SON OF LATE DWARKA BIND 6. SAKUNA DEVI WIFE OF MANIK BIND …RESPONDENTS For the petitioners :Mr. Siddharth Prasad For the State :Mr.Binod Kumar For respondents 5 & 6 :Mr. Diwakar Upadhyaya & :Mr. Praveen Kumar ----------- 06. 13.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. This matter arises out of mutation proceeding. Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 17.05.2010, passed in Mutation Revision Case No. 83/84 of 2004-05. Petitioners claimed title and possession over the land(s) in question by reason of sale effected in the name of the ancestors of the petitioners by one Narottam Mishra in the year 1966. Respondents claimed title and possession over the land(s) by reason of sale effected by the vendees of the land(s), i.e. ancestors of writ petitioners. Respondent-Circle Officer having found that there is already a sale deed effected in favour of the vendor of the respondents and keeping in view the inspection report submitted by the authority lower to him in rank mutation 2 in favour of respondents was allowed. Aggrieved thereby, writ petitioners filed appeal before the respondent-DCLR who allowed the same and set aside the order of Anchal Adhikari. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred revision application before the respondent-Collector which has been considered and allowed by reason of two different and distinct order both dated 17.05.2010. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioners filed the present writ application questioning the sustainability of the order(s). The case of the writ petitioners appears to be that the sale effected by their ancestors in favour of the vendors of the respondents herein were not acted upon. The case of the respondents is that the authorities, particularly the respondent-Circle Officer has considered the title as well as possessions of the petitioners over the land(s) in question whereafter mutation was allowed. It is submitted that the land(s) in question was/were recorded in the name of State of Bihar whereafter a proceeding in terms of Bihar Tenancy Act was preferred by the ancestors of the writ petitioners and the land(s) was/were restored in the name of the ancestors of the writ petitioners. It is further the stand of the petitioners that although according to the respondents the land(s) was/were conveyed in favour of the vendors of the respondents but no effort was made to get the name mutated. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that although the lands were vended by reason of a registered sale deed in favour of the vendors but at no stage of the 3 proceeding the vendor was made party to the proceeding for correction/restoration of Jamabandi in their favour. From materials on record, this Court finds that orders of the authorities particularly that of revisional authority restoring the order of the respondent-Circle Officer do not require interference in view of the findings recorded therein. Having regard to the materials on record and after perusal of the orders impugned, this Court is of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case invocation of the writ jurisdiction would not be a proper exercise of jurisdiction. The party aggrieved, may approach the civil court for appropriate remedy. In case such a suit is filed, the findings recorded in the impugned order(s) shall not enure to the prejudice of the parties to the suit/proceeding. - hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )