IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17049 of 2009 SAUKHI LAL PRASAD S/O LATE JAMUNA PRASAD R/O MAHADEO TIMBER, KANKARBAGH ROAD, P.S- KANKARBAGH, TOWN & DISTT- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. COLLECTOR, PATNA 3. CIRCLE OFFICER, CIRCLE, SADAR, PATNA 4. KRISHNA DEVI, WIFE OF SRI RAGHO PRASAD, 5. RAGHO PRASAD, SON OF LATE RAMJI SINGH, BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE RAGHU BIGHA, P.S. KARAI PARSURAI (HILSA), DISTRICT NALANDA. with CWJC No.17063 of 2009 SAUKHI LAL PRASAD S/O LATE JAMUNA PRASAD R/O MAHADEO TIMBER, KANKARBAGH ROAD, P.S- KANKARBAGH, TOWN & DISTT- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. COLLECTOR, PATNA 3. CIRCLE OFFICER, CIRCLE, SADAR, PATNA 4. MOSTT. DEOPATIA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE CHANDRADIP YADAV, 5. AWADHESH KUMAR 6. RANDHIR KUMAR, BOTH SONS OF LATE CHANDRADIP YADAV 7. KRISHNA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE CHANDRADIP YADAV, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE MONIPUR, P.S. CHANDI, DISTRICT NALANDA 8. SHEODHARI YADAV 9. RAMDHANI YADAV, BOTH SONS OF MUNSHI YADAV, RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE MONIPUR, P.S. CHANDI, DISTRICT NALANDA. with CWJC No.17064 of 2009 SAUKHI LAL PRASAD S/O LATE JAMUNA PRASAD R/O MAHADEO TIMBER, KANKARBAGH ROAD, P.S- KANKARBAGH, TOWN & DISTT- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. COLLECTOR, PATNA 3. CIRCLE OFFICER, CIRCLE, SADAR, PATNA 4. RAVINDRA PRASAD, SON OF LATE GONAR RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAZIPUR, P.S. DORIGANJ (MUFASSIL CHAPRA), DISTRICT CHAPRA (SARAN). with CWJC No.17069 of 2009 SAUKHI LAL PRASAD S/O LATE JAMUNA PRASAD R/O MAHADEO TIMBER, KANKARBAGH ROAD, P.S- KANKARBAGH, TOWN & DISTT- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. COLLECTOR, PATNA 3. CIRCLE OFFICER, CIRCLE, SADAR, PATNA 4. PRABHA SINGH W/O SRI SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH R/O VILL- ANWARPUR, HAJIPUR, P.S- HAJIPUR, DISTT- VAISHALI ----------- 2. 8.12.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner in the four applications is aggrieved by the order dated - 2 - 12.10.2009 passed in Mutation Case Nos.1398/5 of 2009-10, 1396/5 of 2009-10, 1397/5 of 2009-10 and 1395/5 of 2009-10 where under mutation of the lands in question has been allowed in favour of private respondents on the basis of the sale deed executed by Sabitri Devi, the donee of a gift deed which was set aside by Subordinate Judge I, Patna City, Patna in Title Partition Suit No.173 of 2005 under ex-parte order dated 26.9.2006 (Annexure-3 in the four applications). Petitioner is the purchaser from Ramji Mahto, the legal heirs of Bhagti Mahto, the recorded tenant who filed the aforesaid title partition suit in which the gift deed was set aside. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that without impleading him as party in the mutation case the impugned mutation order has been passed, this Court should entertain the writ petition filed against the order passed by the Circle Officer as mutation could not have been allowed without impleading the petitioner as party in the mutation case who was necessary - 3 - N.H./ party since mutation of the lands in question was earlier made in favour of the petitioner. 4. Against the impugned mutation order, petitioner has got a remedy of appeal before the D.C.L.R. accordingly, the four writ petitions are disposed of with direction to the petitioner to approach the D.C.L.R., Sadar, Patna who should entertain the appeal filed against the mutation order after condoning the delay in filing the appeal provided the appeal is filed with a copy of this order within 30 days from today. It shall be open for the petitioner to request the D.C.L.R. for grant of stay of the impugned mutation order. ( V.N. Sinha,J.)