IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1552 of 2007 1. Ajay Kumar Dubey alias Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, son of Raghunath Dubey. 2. Lal Babu Dubey, son of Indra Deo Dubey. 3. Radha Kant Dubey, son of Baburam Dubey. All residents of Village- Misharuli, P.O.- Bhore, P.S. Bhore, District- Gopalganj. .... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra. ... Respondents 1st Set. 3. Rama Dubey, son of Late Surajdeo Dubey. 4. Sama Dubey, son of late Surajdeo Dubey. 5. Koshila Kuer, wife of Late Baliram Dubey. 6. Umesh Dubey, son of late Baliram Dubey. 7. Ratnesh Dubey, son of late Baliram Dubey. 8. Chhotan Dubey, son of late Baliram Dubey. 9. Vinay Dubey, son of late Baliram Dubey. 10.Usha Devi, daughter of late Baliram Dubey. 11. Ramawati Devi, daughter of late Surajdeo Dubey. 12. Most. Rama Kuer, wife of late Gorakh Dubey. 13.Satyendra Dubey, son of late Gorakh Dubey. 14. Upendra Dubey, son of late Gorakh Dubey. 15. Suresh Dubey, son of late Gorakh Dubey. 16. Rikhdeo Dubey, son of Kishundeo Dubey. 17.Chandra Shekhar Dubey, son of Balam Dubey. Respondent nos.3 to 17 residents of Village- Mishrauli, P.O.- Bhore, P.S.- Bhore, District- Gopalganj. ... Respondent 2nd set. ----------- 02- 12.1.2009 Heard Mr. Nagendra Rai for the petitioners, and Ms. Brijita Prakash, learned junior counsel to Government Pleader No.9. It arises out of mutation proceedings and is directed against the order dated 8.5.2006 (Annexure-5), passed by the learned Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra, in Mutation Revision No.49 of 1987-88 (Ajay Kumar Dubey and others Vs. Died Musmat Hira 2 Kuar substituted Rama Dubey and other), whereby the revision application filed by the present petitioners has been rejected, and the order dated 10.8.1987 (Annexure-4 herein), passed by the learned Additional Collector, Gopalganj, in Mutation Revision No.13 of 1983-84, 108 of 1984-85 (Ajay Kumar Dubey and others Vs. Surajdeo Dubey) has been upheld. 2. It appears from a perusal of the impugned order that he had found the possession of respondent nos.3 to 17 and has, therefore, affirmed the order of the learned Additional Collector, whereby it was directed that half of the disputed land in question may be mutated in favour of these respondents. It is further stated therein that the petitioners may approach the civil court for determination of title. 3. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed with the liberty to the petitioners to institute a civil suit in a court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of right, title and interest which, if instituted, shall be adjudicated in accordance with law ignoring the findings and the observations recorded by the mutation authorities. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/ 3