IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.782 of 2002 Kamlesh Sah, Son of Late Kesho Sah, resident of Village- Dhangain, Police Station- Bikramganj, District- Rohtas: ..... ..... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Circle Officer, Bikramganj, District- Rohtas. 3. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Bikramganj, District- Rohtas. 4. The Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram. 5. Kalam Khan. 6. Kalim Khan. 7. Shamim Khan. All Sons of Sattar Khan, residents of Village- Dhangai, Police Station- Bikramganj, District- Rohtas. 8. Salaam Khan (deceased), Son of Late Karim Khan, resident of village- Dhangai, Police Station- Bikramganj, District- Rohtas 8(i) Manan Khan, son of late Salaam Khan, resident of Village- Dhangai, Police Station- Bikramganj, District- Rohtas. ..... Respondents. ****** 07- 16.10.2008 Heard Mr. Subhash Chandra Dubey for the petitioner, Mr. Anwar Karim, learned junior counsel to Standing Counsel No.5 for respondent nos.1 to 5, and Mr. Kamla Kant Pandey for respondent nos.5 to 8. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 3.11.2001 (Annexure-3), passed by the learned Collector of the District of Rohtas (Sasaram), in Mutation Revision Case NO.6 of 2001 (Kalam Khan and others Vs. Kamlesh Sah), whereby the appeal preferred by the present respondent nos.5 to 8 has been allowed, and the appellate 2 order dated 22.1.2001 (Annexure-2), passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Bikramganj (Rohtas), in Mutation Appeal Case No.5 of 2000-01 has been set aside. Respondent nos.5 to 8 have not filed the counter, and have also not produced a copy of the alleged registered Bajidawa in their favour. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The following land is the subject-matter of the present proceeding: ekStk [kkrk [ksljk jdok /kuxkbZ 02 1468 0&04 Mh0 4. The present respondent nos.5 to 8 filed an application before the learned Anchal Adhikari, Bikramganj, for mutation of the land in question in their favour. The same was registered as Case No.9 of 1999-2000 (Md. Kalam Khan Vs. Dhangai). They based their claim for mutation on a registered Bajidawa dated 17.6.1975 in their favour. The petitioner herein filed an objection stating therein that he is entitled to mutation of the land in question, inter alia, on the ground that his grand-father had acquired 3 decimals of land of the said Khesra No.1468, by a registered deed of absolute sale dated 25.3.1968, 3 from Damari Sah, the grand father of respondent nos.5 to 8. On a consideration of the materials on record, the learned Anchal Adhikari disposed of the mutation application by his order dated 9.6.2000 (Annexure-1), whereby he directed that two decimals of the land in question shall be mutated in favour of respondent nos.5 to 8 herein, and the balance 2 decimals of land mutated in favour of the petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the same, respondent nos.5 to 8 preferred appeal before the learned L.R.D.C., Bikramganj (Rohtas), which was registered as Mutation Appeal No.5 of 2000-01. The petitioner herein had preferred cross-appeal. Both the matters were disposed of by a common order dated 22.1.2001 (Annexure-2), whereby the cross-appeal of the petitioner herein was rejected mainly on the ground that the same suffered from certain defects like limitation, non-supply of certified copy of the impugned order etc. The appeal of respondent nos.5 to 8 herein was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, respondent nos.5 to 8 preferred revision application before the learned Collector of the district of Rohtas at Sasaram, which was registered as Mutation Revision Case No.6 of 2001 (Kalam Khan and othes vs. Kamlesh Sah). The 4 petitioner also preferred revision application against the order by preferring Mutation Revision Case No.12 of 2001 (Kamlesh Sah Vs. Kalam Khan and others). Mutation Revision Case No. 6 of 2001 was allowed by order dated 3.11.2001 (Annexure-3), whereby the orders of the learned Anchal Adhikari and the learned L.R.D.C. were set aside, and it was directed that whole of the 4 decimals of the land shall be mutated in the name of respondent nos.5 to 8 herein. Mutation Revision Case No.12 of 2001 was rejected by the order dated 3.11.2001. Hence this writ petition at the instance of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before us the registered sale deed in original for perusal. It appears to us that the grand-father of the petitioner had acquired title of 3 decimals of the said Khesra no.1468 by a registered deed of absolute sale dated 25.3.1968 executed by the grand father of respondent nos.5 to 8 herein. There are further materials on record to show that the petitioner came in actual physical possession of 3 decimals with the registration of the sale deed. Law is well settled that nobody can pass on title of a property to anybody higher than what he himself 5 has. In view of the sale deed dated 25.3.1968, the ancestor of respondent nos.5 to 8 herein lost title to the extent of 3 decimals of Khesra no.1468. The registered Bajidawa of 17.6.1975 was obviously after execution of the sale deed and cannot, therefore, operate with respect to the 3 decimals alienated in favour of the petitioner. It is relevant to state that the Bajidawa was executed by the ancestor of respondent nos.5 to 8 in favour of the latter. 6. We, therefore, disagree with the orders of all the three authorities. The order dated 22.1.2001 (Annexure-2), passed by the learned appellate authority, and the order dated 3.11.2001 (annexure-3), passed by the learned revisional authority, are hereby set aside. The order dated 9.6.2000 (Annexure-1) is hereby modified to the extent that the three decimals of the land as per the registered deed of absolute sale dated 25.3.1968, shall be mutated in favour of the petitioner. The names of respondent nos.5 to 8 shall be mutated with respect to the balance 1 decimal of land which is not covered by the registered sale-deed. 7 This writ petition is accordingly allowed. It goes without saying that it will be 6 open to the aggrieved person to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of title and consequential relief(s) in accordance with law. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove with respect to title or possession of the land in question is not on the basis of substantive evidence, shall be deemed to be confined to the disposal of the present writ petition, and shall not bind the civil court. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/