IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.172 of 2002 1. Prabhu Deyal Singh son of Late Tipan Singh. 2. Upendra Singh @ Upendra Narayan Singh, son of Late Tipan Singh. Both residence of Village Dhandiha, Police Station- Koilwar, District- Bhojpur, Ara. ..... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Collector, Bhojpur. 3. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms Sadar, Arrah. 4. Surya Devi w/o Kalika Singh, resident of Village Dhandiha, Police Station- Koilwar, District- Bhojpur. ..... Respondents. ----------- 05- 7.11.2008 Heard Mr. Vijayendra Nath for the petitioners, Mr. Anwar Karim, learned junior counsel to Standing Counsel No.5, and Mr. Manish Dhari Singh, learned junior counsel to Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar for respondent no.4. 2. It arises out of a mutation proceeding. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.5.1996 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned L.R.D.C., Sadar Ara, in Mutation Appeal No.52 of 1995-96 (Smt. Surya Devi Vs. Prabhu Dayal Singh and others), whereby he has allowed the appeal preferred by respondent no.4, set aside the order of the learned Anchal Adhikari, and the lands in question were directed to be mutated in favour 2 of respondent no.4. It is further directed against the revisional order dated 11.9.2001 (Annexue-2), passed by the learned Collector of the District of Bhojpur at Ara, in Mutation Revision Case No.3 of 1996-97 (Prabhu Dayal Singh and others Vs. Surya Devi). 3. A summary of facts essential for disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The mutation proceedings are with respect to mutation over 2 decimals of land of R.S. Khata No.875, Plot No.3560 of village Dhandiha, Police Station- Koilwar, District- Bhojpur. One Suga Kuer had executed a registered deed of gift, gifting the lands in question in favour of the petitioners. This was followed by the said order dated 5.5.1975/6.5.1975, whereby the same were mutated in favour of the petitioners. Some trouble arose between the present petitioners and one Nand Kumar Singh with respect to the lands conveyed to the petitioners by deed of gift. In order to purchase peace, the said Nand Kumar Singh had executed a registered deed of sale in favour of the petitioners with respect to the lands in question. 3 4. Thereafter the petitioners filed an application for mutation of the lands in question in their favour, consequent upon the said sale deed dated 13.7.1993. The same was registered as Mutation Case No.129 of 1993-94. Respondent no.4 herein raised an objection before the learned Anchal Adhikari in this mutation case that the lands in question had already been conveyed in her favour by a registered sale deed by Nand Kumar Singh. On a consideration of the materials on record, the learned Anchal Adhikari rejected the objection of respondent no.4 herein, and directed for mutation of the lands in question in favour of the petitioners, vide his order dated 4.9.1993, passed in Mutation Case No.129 of 1993-94. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Anchal Adhikari, respondent no.4 preferred appeal which was allowed by order dated 17.5.1996 (Annexure-1), whereby the appeal was allowed, the order of the learned Anchal Adhikari was set aside, and the lands in question were directed to be mutated in favour of respondent no.4. The petitioners preferred revision application which was rejected by the learned Collector by his order dated 11.9.2001 4 (Annexure-2), passed in Mutation Revision Case No.3 of 1996-97. 5. In the meantime, respondent no.4 had instituted Title Suit No.211 of 1995 for declaration of right, title and interest with respect to the lands in question. The same was dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated 6.12.2000 (Annexure-4), passed by the learned Munsif 3rd, Arrah in Title Suit No. 211 of 1995 (Surya Devi Vs. Prabhu Dayal Singh and others). Copy of the order dated 6.12.2000 is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: bu nh dksVZ vkSQ 3MZ eaqflQ vkjk Vh0,l0 ua0 211@95 lq;kZ nsoh cuke izHkw n;ky flag oxS0 6&12&2000% izfroknh dh dksbZ iSjoh gS oknh dksbZ iSjoh ugh gS@ okn iqdkj gqvk ckj ckj iwdkjus ds ckotwn Hkh oknh dh vksj ls dksbZ mifLFkr ugh gq, oknh fnukad 26&11&98 dk foFkM+k dk vkosnu fn;k Fkk oknh dh vksj ls fnukad 17&5&99 ls oknh u rks gkftjh nsrs gS vkSj ugh dksbZ mifLFkr gksrk gS yxrk gS fd oknh dks okn ls dksbZ vfHk#fp ugh gS@ vr% okn dks vkne iSsjsohs es [kkjht fd;k tkrk gS ! g0@& vLi"V 6. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioners had acquired right, title and interest with respect to the land in 5 question by a registered deed of gift dated 10.7.1974, which was followed by mutation of the lands in their favour by order dated 5.5.1975/6.5.1975. In view of the registered deed of gift, the land could not have been further alienated. The petitioners had thus acquired right, title and interest with respect to the lands in question by virtue of the registered deed of gift. It, however, appears that respondent no.4 had obtained a registered sale deed from Nand Kumar Singh on 25.7.1984. However, in view of the later sale deed dated 13.7.1993, from Nand Kumar Singh in favour of the petitioners, she felt that her right, title and interest in the lands were threatened and had, therefore, instituted Title Suit No.211 of 1995. That was the most appropriate course for her but she did not pursue it to its logical conclusion and allowed the suit to be dismissed for non-prosecution. No material has been brought on record to show that steps were taken to set aside the order dated 6.12.2000 (Aannexure-4). It thus appears that the same has attained finality and the provisions of Order-9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure are attracted. The order dated 5.5.1975/ 6 6.5.1975, and the later order dated 4.9.1993, in favour of the petitioners mutating the lands in question in favour of the petitioners, cannot be faulted. Consequently the appellate order and the revisional order become bad in law and are fit to be set aside. 7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, the order dated 17.5.1996 (Annexure-1), and the revisional order dated 11.9.2001 (Annexure-2), are hereby set aside. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/