IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6393 of 2002 1. BALESHWAR PRASAD 2. Rameshwar Prasad Sinha 3.(a) Sudha Srivastava widow of Late Kameshwar Srivastava 3.(b) Sanjib Kumar son of Late Kameshwar Srivatava 3.(c) Rajib Kr. Srivastava son of Late Kameshwar Srivastava 4. Sidheshwar Prasad Srivastava Umesh Prasad Sinha 6. dinesh Prasad Sinha all sons of Late Dharam Nath Sahay, all residents of village- Atami, P.S. Nawanagar, District- Bhojpur ---- Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Collector, Buxar 3. Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Dumraon P.S. Dumraon, District- Buxar. 4. Anchal Adhikari, Nawanagar, P.S. Nawanagar, District- Buxar---- Respondents Ist party 5. Sidhnath Singh Yadav son of Late Daroga Singh Yadav 6. Hare Ram Singh Yadav 7. Hare Krishna Singh Yadav 8. Vijay Singh Yadav, all sons of Late Sheo Prasad Singh Yadav, All residents of village- Atami, P.S. Nawanagar, District- Bjojpur----Respondents 2nd Party ------ Respondents. ----------- Counsel for the petitioners : Mr. Sukumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Abinash Kumar, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. K.P.Yadav, Adv. Mr. Suresh Kumar, Adv. Sri Avinash Kumar For the State : Shri Amar Karim, Advocate JC to SC V. _________ 5/ 3-Feb-09 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners, respondent Nos. 5 to 8 and State. 2 The petitioners are challenging the order dated 25.3.2002 (Annexure-6) passed by the Collector, Buxar (respondent No.2) in Revision Case No.68 of 2001, dismissing his revision application and affirming the order dated 21.6.2001 (Annexure-5); by which the Respondent No.3 had allowed the appeal setting aside the order dated 18.4.2000 (Annexure-4) passed by the Anchal Adhikari (respondent no.4) allowing the mutation application in favour of the petitioners. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in terms of order dated 27.9.1999 passed in C.W.J.C. No.3728 of 1985 contained as Annexure -3 permitting the petitioners to file a fresh application for mutation in respect of the land in question before the Circle Officer along with the judgment of different Courts, including Apex Court and the Circle Officer was directed to consider the judgments passed in the Title Suit against the ancestors of the petitioners as well as the different courts including the Apex Court relating to the land in question. It is submitted that in the Civil 3 Suit, lands in question, were allotted to the father of the petitioners and as such in respect of the said land he had filed an application for mutation which was allowed by the Anchal Adhikari. However, the Deputy Collector Lands Reforms, on appeal, set aside the order as contained in Annexure-4 by his order dated 25.6.2001 (Annexure-5). The petitioners thereafter preferred a revision against the said order dated 21.6.2001. The revision was, however, dismissed. It is further submitted that the revision application was dismissed without considering the main question that the lands, in respect of which the revision application was filed by the petitioners, on being allotted to the share of the father of the petitioners were in their cultivating possession since then and as such order of the mutation passed by the Anchal Adhikari (respondent no.4) in respect of the land in question could not have been overturned by the D.C.L.R. (respondent no.3). The Collector, Buxar (respondent No.2) while disposing of the revision application filed by the petitioners did not consider that the 4 mutation in respect of the land as claimed by the petitioners on being allotted to the share of the father of petitioners as per the judgment in Civil Suit as referred to in the order of this Court contained in Annexure -3, was in cultivating possession of the petitioners and as such revision application could not have been dismissed without considering the judgments passed in the Civil Suit as finally modified subsequently by the Apex Court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 to 8 submits that the question of title could not be decided and more so the claim that the land; over which the mutation is being claimed by the petitioners was neither decided in the civil suit nor was it allotted in the share of the father of the petitioners and as such the petitioners never remained in the possession of the land in question. However, the counsel does not dispute that it goes without saying that the mutation application filed by the petitioners was required to be considered in light of the order dated 27.9.1999 passed by this Court in CWJC No.3728 of 1985 as contained in Annexure-3. 5 Considering the submissions of the parties and their respective pleadings, it is not in dispute that in the mutation proceedings, the question of the title can not be adjudicated. However, the direction of this Court as contained in Annexure -3 to the effect that the authority shall consider the application for mutation in light of the observation of this Court regarding judgment in the Title Suit vide order (Annexure-3) and as such it was obligatory on the part of the authorities to consider the findings in the judgments of the Civil Suit in view of the Apex Court as well as the claim of the possession as claimed by the parties. On perusal of the impugned order as contained in Annexure-6, it appears that the Revisional Court has not considered the points raised in the application for revision to the effect that the mutation application was required to be considered in light of the judgment in the Civil Suit as mentioned in the order of this Court contained in Annexure-3. It also does not appear from the impugned order dated 25.3.2002 (Annexure-6) that while 6 considering the revisional application , as to how the point raised by the petitioner regarding the judgment in the Civil Suit finally modified by Apex Court vide Annexure-2 was considered. In view of the discussions above, the impugned order dated 25th March, 2002 as contained in Annexure -6 can not be sustained in law and as such quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Collector, Buxar (respondent no.2) for passing fresh order in accordance with law considering the points raised by the petitioners in the revision application as also objections filed by the respondents including the order of this Court passed on 27th September, 1999 in C.W.J.C.3728 of 1985 as contained in Annexure- 3 expeditiously preferably within a period of six months on receipt/production of the copy of this order. Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of with above observation/direction. chauhan (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)