IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14766 of 2007 1. Ravindra Kumar Mishra alias Ravindra Mishra son of Sri Awadhesh Kumar Mishra 2. Awadhesh Mishra son of Late Bandan Mishra, residents of Village- Kurka, P.S. Deo and District- Aurangabad --------- Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Aurangabad 2. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Aurangabad 3. The Anchal Adhikari, Deo, District- Aurangabad 4. Shashi Bhushan Mishra 5. Dilip Kumar Mishra both sons of Late Gulab Kali Devi alias Ram Rati Devi wife of Shambhu Mishra, residents of Village- Majhigawan via Baulia, District- Rohtas at present residents of Mishra Vastrayala cinema Road Anpara, P.O. and P.S. Anpara, District-Sonbhadra, State Uttar Pradesh 6. Rajendra Prasad son of late Bhola Sao 7. Judagir Sao 8. Manik Chand Sao, both sons of late Siri Sao 9. Mithilesh Sao son of Sri Ram Chandra Sao, all residents of Village- Kurka, P.S. Deo and District-Aurangabad ----------- Respondents. ---------- 2. 3.3.2009 Heard Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha No.I for the petitioners, and learned Assistant Counsel to Government Pleader No. 9 for respondent nos. 1 to 3.We do not feel the necessity of issuing notices to respondent nos. 4 to 9 in view of the nature of the order we are going to pass. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.12.2006 (Annexure-4), passed by respondent no.3 in five applications bearing Mutation Case Nos. 853 of 2006 (Rajendra Prasad Vers. Ravindra Mishra), 857 of 2006 (Judagir Sao Vrs. Ravindra Mishra), 856 of 2006 (Mithilesh Sao Vrs. Ravindra Mishra), 855 of 2006 (Manik Chandra Sao Vrs. Ravindra Mishra) and 854 of 2006 (Bhola Sao Vrs. Ravindra Mishra), whereby the lands in question have been directed to be mutated in favour of the applicants therein. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises a grievance before this Court that the 2 learned appellant authority (respondent no.2) had earlier passed order of mutation of the lands in question in favour of the petitioners, and respondent no.3, being the first authority, by the impugned order allowed the application of respondent nos. 4 to 9, which is sitting in judgment over his superior. Learned Government Counsel has supported the impugned order. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to me that respondent nos. 4 to 9 are purchasers from Gulab Kali Devi by registered deed of absolute sale. After execution of the sale deed, respondent nos. 4 to 9 filed five separate applications for mutation of the lands in question in their favour which have been allowed by the impugned order. It further appears to me from a perusal of the writ petition, particularly paragraph 9, that the petitioners had already instituted Title Suit no.189 of 2000 in the court of the learned Sub Judge, Aurangabad, which is still pending. In that view of the matter, it appears that this is a frivolous writ petition, inasmuch as the parties are already locked in a civil suit. The petitioners have burdened this Court with a most unwanted matter. The writ petition is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. )