IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.7287 of 2008 Chandragupta Mourya, son of Shri Shiv Nath Singh, resident of village Dhanpurwa, P.S. Sasaram, district Rohtas .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sasaram (Rohtas) 4. The Circle Officer, Sasaram (Rohtas) 5. Dr. Kameshwar Nath Tiwary, son of Shri Kant Tiwary, resident of village Parasiyan, P.S. Brahampur, district Buxar at present residing in House No. 15, Bank Colony of Fazalganj, P.S. Sasaram, district Rohtas .. Respondents **** /2/ 23.04.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner’s prayer is for quashing the order, dated 28.01.2008, passed by the Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram, in Mutation Revision Case No. 15 of 2007 affirming the order, dated 07.03.2007, passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sasaram, in Mutation Appeal No. 123 of 2002-2003/86 of 2005-2006 and also the order, dated 31.08.2002, passed by the Anchal Adhikari, Sasaram, in Mutation Case No. 1058 of 2002- 2003. Petitioner has lost his case before all three Courts. Petitioner is claiming right, title and possession over the land measuring 0.8(1/2) of C.S. Plot No. 95, khata no. 20 2 corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 1490 (R.S. khata no. 486) of village Lakharwa, P.S. Sasaram, district Rohtas, on the basis of registered deed of gift, dated 23.08.1999 executed in his favour by Shyam Sundar Mahto. Petitioner is claiming that he is in peaceful possession over the land. Respondent no. 5 had filed an application for mutation of his name with respect to same lands which were transferred in his favour on the basis of registered sale deed no. 10266, dated 12.07.2002, executed by Shyam Sundar Mahto along with other family persons. Lands transferred to respondent no. 5 through registered sale deed were same lands which were gifted to the petitioner through registered gift deed, dated 23.08.1999, by Shyam Sundar Mahto. The case was registered as Mutation Case No. 1058 of 2002-2003 and allowed by order, dated 31.08.2002. It has been submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that order was passed without any notice to the petitioner or any interested person, simply on the basis of an enquiry from persons, present in the said shivir, where Court was held by Circle Officer on the particular date. Against this order petitioner preferred Mutation Appeal No. 123 of 2002-2003 before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sasaram, which was dismissed by order, dated 10.03.2003 on the ground of limitation, 3 without going into the merit of the case. Against this order petitioner preferred Mutation Revision No. 49 of 2002-2003 which was disposed off by order, dated 28.10.2005 and the matter was remitted back to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms for passing fresh order after making a spot enquiry with regard to possession. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sasaram, by order, dated 05.01.2006 rejected the prayer of the petitioner affirming the order of the Circle Officer. The petitioner preferred another Mutation Revision No. 15 of 2007 and that has also been dismissed. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has challenged all three orders stating that the authorities failed to consider the gift deed executed in his favour and the order passed by Munsif, I, Sasaram, in Title Suit No. 81 of 1999 whereby title suit filed by one Baidnath Mahto and others challenging the gift deed executed in favour of petitioner was withdrawn by the plaintiff. The registered gift deed in favour of petitioner, thus, became an absolute piece of evidence to show his title. So far possession is concerned, that is also with the petitioner. However, I find that the registered sale deed executed in favour of respondent no. 5 by Shyam Sundar Mahto and others was challenged by the petitioner 4 by filing Title Suit No. 553 of 2002 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sasaram. That title suit has been dismissed on 27.01.2005 against which F.A. No. 74 of 2006 has been preferred by the petitioner, which is pending for disposal. Enquiry report of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, indicates possession of respondent no. 5. In view of this fact that the matter relating to declaration of sale deed in favour of respondent no. 5 as null and void, is still subjudice, so far title of the petitioner is concerned, and there is finding against the petitioner relating to his possession over the land. In this circumstance, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders passed by all three Courts. 4. However, the petitioner may approach the revenue authority for mutation of his name with respect to same land, in case the First Appeal is decreed or decided in his favour declaring his right, title and possession over the disputed land. 5. This application is dismissed. Cp:2/S.A. ( Mridula Mishra, J. )