IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13277 of 2011 Rajeev Ranjan S/o Sri Brahmdeo Sah resident of Village Rajo Patti, Dumra Road, P.S. and District, Sitmarhi…. ….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, 2. The Collector Sitamarhi at Sitamarhi, 3. The D.C.L.R. Sitamarhi Sadar at Sitamarhi, 4. The Anchal Adhikari, Riga District Sitamarhi, 5. Hadish Ansari S/o Kali Ansari, resident of Village Chandiha, P.S. Riga District, Sitamarhi…. …Respondents ……… For the Petitioner : Mr. Uday Kumar, Dr. Mayanand Jha, Advocates For the State : Mr. Anirudh Mishra, A.C. top G.P. 13 ……………… 3 19.09.2011 It is a peculiar case wherein the petitioner challenges the part of the order dated 19.2.1990 / 20.2.1990 passed by the Anchal Adhikari, Riga in Mutation Case No. 851/89-90 in the year 2011. Ordinarily, this Court could have dismissed this writ application on the ground of delay and laches for the reason that the order is being challenged after about 20 years. However, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that an 2 appeal being Mutation Appeal No. 23 of 1990 was preferred by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order passed by the Anchal Adhikari, Riga, however the same is still pending before the D.C.L.R., Sitamarhi, West, a copy of memorandum of appeal has been appended as Annexure-5. Learned counsel, at the time of hearing of this case, has confined his prayer for a direction to the aforesaid appellate authority to dispose of the appeal which has surprisingly remained pending for about 20 years. Learned counsel appearing for the State does not have any objection to the prayer of the petitioner. In above view of the matter, this writ application is being disposed of, without going into the merit of the case of the respective parties, with a direction to respondent no.3, i.e., the D.C.L.R., Sitamarhi Sadar at Sitamarhi to dispose of the Mutation Appeal No.23 of 1990 within four months from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of this order, if the same is still pending as claimed 3 by the petitioner. This goes without saying that the appeal, if still pending, being of more than 20 years old, should be disposed of after issuing fresh notice upon the concerned parties, if any. Sanjay-II (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)