IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.6160 of 2008 1. Ganga Sagar Yadav 2. Ram Ashish Jadav Both sons of late Chatuni Jadav, resident of Village and Post Ofice Semaria, Police Station Shahpur, district Bhojpur .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Bhojpur at Ara 2. The Collector, Bhojpur at Ara 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Police Station Ara, district Bhojpur at Ara 4. The Circle Officer, Shahpur, Police Station Shahpur, district Bhojpur at Ara 5. Ram Pravesh Yadav, son of late Bishun Yadav 6. Jagdamba Yadav, son of late Bishun Yadav 7. Bishwanath Lal, son of late Chandrika Lal 8. Basudeo Lal, son of late Chandrika Lal 9. Ram Pravesh Lal, son of late Raghubir Lal 10. Shambhu Nath Lal, son of late Ganesh @ Ashish Lal All 5 to 10 are residents of village and Post Office Semaria, Police Station Shahpur, district Bhojpur .. Respondents **** /3/ 13.04.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the orders, dated 15.04.1993 and 31.08.2007, passed in Mutation Appeal No. 37 of 1993-1994 and Mutation Revision Case No. 17 of 1993-1994. By the impugned orders Jamabandi in the name of petitioners created on the basis of order passed in - 2 - Mutation Case No. 171 of 1988-1989 have been cancelled. Petitioners as well as respondents 5 and 6 are purchaser of lands of khata no. 74, plots no. 30, 103, 104, 126, 130, 131 and 152. Petitioners are claiming that they purchased 5 decimals of khata no. 74 from Raghubir Lal. On the other hand, respondents 5 and 6 purchased through sale deed executed by Chandrika Lal. Petitioners’ case is that the mutation was done in their favour earlier. Subsequently, in the year 1992 in Mutation Case No. 7 of 1992-1993 only 21 decimals were mutated in favour of respondents 5 and 6, but, the appellate Court and the revisional Court, after going into the title of the parties, directed to mutate entire 26 decimals in the name of respondents 5 and 6 and the earlier mutation made in favour of petitioners with respect to 5 decimals has been cancelled. 3. Considering the fact that the validity of the sale deed executed in favour of the parties are under dispute and for deciding possession of the parties for the purposes of mutation title is also one of the relevant factors, the impugned orders need no interference. Whosoever be the aggrieved one, considering the fact that both are claiming - 3 - possession, it will be proper to approach Civil Court to first get decided their title and on that basis can claim for mutation. No interference is required. 4. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Cp:2/S.A. (Mridula Mishra, J.)