IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11654 of 2008 SITARAM MISTRY SON OF JHOON MISTRY, RESIDENT OF NEINSAGAR, P.S. BARACHATTI, DISTRICT GAYA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND COMMISSIONER, GAYA. 2. LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, SHERGHATI, GAYA. 3. ANCHAL ADHIKARI, DOBHI, GAYA. 4. RAVINDER SINGH SON OF KULDEEP SINGH @ KULAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NEINSAGAR, P.S. BARACHATTI, DISTRICT GAYA. 5. BIRENDRA SINGH SON OF KULDEEP SINGH @ KULAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NEINSAGAR, P.S. BARACHATTI, DISTRICT GAYA. ----------- 2/ 11-05-2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. 2. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing order dated 30.06.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Gaya rejecting the mutation revision instituted by the petitioner against the order of the appellate authority, i.e., Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Gaya. 3. Petitioner’s case is that a sale deed was executed in his favour on 24.02.2001 by one Birendra Singh (respondent no.5). The land, which was transferred in favour of the petitioner by respondent no.5, according to the petitioner, was in the share of Birendra Singh. He had got valid title , interest and possession over the land and the vendor transferred his right, title and possession in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application before the Anchal Adhikari, Gaya for mutation of his name with respect to the transferred land. The Anchal Adhikari in the camp Court passed an order dated 14.03.2001 and recommended for mutation of petitioner’s name with - 2 - respect to 19 decimal of land of khata no. 52, plot no. 232, 217 and 535. Respondent no.4, who is the co-sharer of respondent no.5 when came to know about this mutation order, filed an appeal before the D.C.L.R. Sherghati against the order dated 14.03.2001 passed by the Circle Officer. In this appeal it was stated that without issuing any notice to the respondents, without holding any enquiry and on the basis of wrong statement made before the Circle Officer, order of mutation was passed. A Title Partition Suit No. 242 of 2001 is pending before the civil court. The share of the co-sharer is still undecided. In this situation, no order should have been passed for mutating the petitioner’s name. However, in violation of the rule of natural justice and ignoring the mandatory provision for passing any order of mutation, the Circle Officer has passed order in favour of the petitioner. The appellate court set aside the order passed by the Circle Officer. Against this order petitioner preferred Revision Case No. 132 of 2003 before the Collector Gaya. By order dated 10.06.2008 the revision application has also been dismissed and the order passed by the appellate court has been set aside. 4. On perusal of the impugned orders, i.e., revisional and appellate orders, I find that there is no error, rather the order passed by the Circle Officer was erroneous being in violation of the rule of natural justice and the order was passed ignoring the mandatory provisions under the Bihar Tenants Holding ( Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. 5. Considering this fact, I do not find need for interfering with the impugned order. This application is dismissed. - 3 - 6. However, it will be open for the petitioner to file a fresh application for mutation after disposal of the Title Partition Suit No. 242 of 2001. BTiwary/ ( Mridula Mishra, J )