IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19393 of 2010 1. SACHCHIDA NAND TIWARY 2. ANIL KUMAR TIWARY 3. SUNIL KUMAR TIWARY ALL SONS OF JAY GOVIND TIWARY, R/O VILL KHIRA, P.S. BHABUA DIST. KAIMUR, AT PRESENT R/O MAUZA GHATAW TOLA PHAKARABAD P.S. KUDRA DIST. KAIMUR --- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, KAIMUR 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, BHABUA 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, KUDRA 5. BHUNESHWAR YADAV SON OF LATE RAM NATH YADAV 6. SATENDRA KUMAR YADAV SON OF BHUNESHWAR YADAV 7. SMT. PODHARI DEVI W/O BHUNESHWAR YADAV ALL R/O VILL. GHATAW TOLA SARAI, P.S. KUDRA DIST. KAIMUR ---RESPONDENTS. For the petitioners : Mr. Subhash Chandra Dubey, Advocate. For respondent (State): Mr. Rishi Raj sinha, G.P. 19 For Private respondents: Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, Advocate. ----------- 03 28.02.2011 Heard the parties. Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 25.09.2004 (Annexure-1) and 12.03.2010 (Annexure-3) passed by respondent no. 4 and 2 respectively. Respondent Additional Collector has passed order in mutation revision no. 3 of 2007-08, 06 of 2008-09 (Bhuneshwar Yadav & others vs. Sachchida Nand Tiwary & ors). Respondent nos. 5 to 7 based on sale deed executed by the daughter of recorded tenant Kasturva Kuar made an application for mutation in respect of the subject land. Said prayer was allowed by the respondent Anchal Adhikari by order dated 25.09.2004 (Annexure- 1). Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the writ petitioners claiming themselves purchaser of the said land from the mother of the vendor of the respondents, namely, Kasturva Kuar filed appeal. Respondent D.C.L.R., the appellate authority, allowed the said appeal by order 2 dated 13.07.2007(Annexure-2). Aggrieved over the said order, respondent nos. 5 to 7 filed revision before the respondent Collector. Said respondent by order dated 12.03.2010 (Annexure-3) allowed the application concluding therein that a suit has already been filed by the writ petitioners and that the sale deed made in favour of the revisionist (respondents herein) cannot be declared in-operative in a proceeding for mutation. It was further found that the name of respondent nos. 5 to 7 stood recorded in the consolidation records also. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the revisional order, submits that there is/are certain findings recorded therein which may prejudice the petitioners. It is next contended that the inspection report submitted by the Circle Inspector was collusive one. He, however, not denied the fact that the name of private respondent nos. 5 to 7 stood recorded in the consolidation records and that there is sale deed in their favour executed by one of the daughters of Kasturva Kuar. No procedural infirmity and/or jurisdictional error has been demonstrated by learned counsel for the petitioners. It is settled law that mutation neither creates title nor extinguishes it. It further appears that writ petitioners have already approached the Court of competent civil jurisdiction for declaration of their title. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction in the matter. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym/ ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)