IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14802 of 2007 NIRAJ TRIPATHI S/o Jaleshwari Tiwari resident of village Awari, P.S. Mohania Kaimur at Bhabua Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, Kaimur at Bhabua 3. The Deputy Collector land Reforms, Mohania, Dist Kaimur at Bhabua 4. The Circle Officer, Mohania, Kaimur at Bhabua 5. Shashinath Tiwari @ Tripathi son of Late Viswanth Tripathi resident of village Awari, P.S. Mohania Kaimur at Bhabua Respondents ------------ 2 03.03.2009 Heard Mr Surendra Kishore Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant counsel to learned Additional Advocate General no.5, for the respondents. This writ petition arises out of mutation proceedings, is directed against the order dated 6.6.2007 (Annexure 1), passed by respondent no.2, in purported exercise of power under section 16 of the Bihar Tenants’ Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, whereby he has allowed Mutation Revision case no.26/2003-04 (Shashi Nath Tiwari vs State of Bihar & others), preferred by respondent no.5 herein, and the lands in question have been directed to be mutated in his name. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It is with respect to the land appertaining to Khata nos.212, 253, 203, situate in Village Awari ,Police Station Anand at Mohania, Dist. Kaimur at Bhabua. The petitioner had filed an application for mutation of the lands in question in his favour which was allowed by order dated 20.10.2001 (Annexure 4), passed by respondent no.4. Aggrieved by this order, respondent no.5 herein preferred appeal which was rejected by the - 2 - order dated 13.5.2003 (Annexure 5), passed by respondent no.3, and order of the learned Anchal Adhikari was upheld. Aggrieved by this order, respondent no.5 herein preferred revision application which was allowed, orders of the two authorities have been set aside, and it has been directed that the lands in question may be mutated in favour of the petitioner. Learned Revisional authority has passed the impugned order wherein it has been observed that the petitioner has not been able to prove his case based on family partition. It is relevant to state that the petitioner and respondent no.5 are full brothers. He has further observed that the petitioner has obtained title of the same by a registered deed of gift no.7932, dated 26.8.1990, and is in peaceful possession of the same. In that view of the matter, the impugned order can not be faulted. The writ petition is dismissed. shahid (S.K.Katriar, J)