IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10099 of 2011 1. Md.Momin S/O Abdul Hamid R/O Village-Bholamari, P.S.- Amdabad, Distt.-Katihar 2. Mahboob Alam S/O Abdul Hamid R/O Village-Bholamari, P.S.- Amdabad, Distt.-Katihar 3. Md. Manir S/O Abdul Hamid R/O Village-Bholamari, P.S.- Amdabad, Distt.-Katihar 4. Moharam @ Mahsan S/O Abdul Hamid R/O Village-Bholamari, P.S.-Amdabad, Distt.-Katihar 5. Saiffuddin S/O Abdul Hamid R/O Village-Bholamari, P.S.- Amdabad, Distt.-Katihar …Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate Cum-Collector, Katihar 3. The Additional Collector, Katihar 4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms Manihari Katihar 5. The Circle Officer, Katihar 6. Aabdul Hamid S/O Late Jafar Ali R/O Villagte-Bholmari, Ps.- Amdabad, Distt.-Katihar 7. Md. Ibrahim S/O Late Md. Israil R/O Village-Bholmari, P.S.- Amdabad, Distt.-Katihar …Respondents For the Petitioners :Mr. Bhola Prasad For the State :Mr. Tejendra Sinha, A.C. to G.P.20 ---------------------------------- 03. 16.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Petitioners raise a grievance with respect to the order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the Respondent-Collector, Katihar in Mutation Revision Case No. 754/2001-02. Dispute in the present case relates to 09 decimals of land appertaining to R.S. khata no. 445, plot no. 1623 situated in Mauza Govindpur. Respondent nos. 6 and 7 purchased 22 decimals of land out of the aforesaid khata from another co-sharer. They got their names mutated in respect of the said land. Subsequent thereto, petitioners purchased 09 decimals of land from another co-sharer. Without assailing the order of mutation passed in respect of the major portion of the land in 2 question made in favour of the private respondents, petitioners again preferred an application seeking mutation in respect of the aforesaid 09 decimals of land which was considered and rejected. Aggrieved thereby, they filed appeal which also stood rejected. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners filed revision which was considered and rejected. The said order dated 15.12.2010 has been made impugned in the present application. Learned counsel for the petitioners made diverse submissions in support of the application. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned order. On perusal of the order, it appears that the Circle Officer as well as the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, found that the land in question was in possession of the private respondents. The revisional court has taken a view that petitioners ought to have challenged the order of mutation made in favour of the said respondents which was never done. A finding in revisional order has also been recorded that respondents were found in possession of the land in question. Mutation of the name of the landholder in revenue record neither creates nor extinguishes the title. Whoever found in actual possession of the land is entitled to record his/her name in revenue record for the purpose of realization of land rent/revenue. This Court, on perusal of the order is of the view that a complicated question of title is involved 3 between the parties over the land in question. Regard being had to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned in the present writ petition. Any party including the writ petitioners, if aggrieved by the present order, is/are free to institute an appropriate suit for declaration of right title and interest. This Court would further observe that any finding with regard to title of the land recorded in the impugned order shall not, in that event, prejudice the case of the petitioners. The application stands disposed of. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )