IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6657 of 2007 1. BISHWANATH SINGH 2. PARASNATH SINGH 3. MUKTINATH SINGH All son of late Sadhu Sharan Prasad, Residents of village-Jogipur, P.S. Gopalpur, P.O.-Semra Bazar, Pergana-Kuari, District-Gopalganj------Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, GOPALGANJ 3. THE LAND REFORM DEPUTY COLLECTOR, GOPALGANJ 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER,KUCHAI-KOT,P.S.-KUCHAI-KOT DISTRICT-GOPALGANJ. 5. CHANDRA SHEKHAR MISHRA S/O SHRI BHARAT MISHRA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-CHOUHANPATTI,P.O. BATHUWA BAZAR, DISTRICT-GOPALGANJ---- -------------------------Respondents. ----------- 2. 4.2.2009 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshari for the petitioner, and Mr. Ranjan Kumar, learned Assistant Counsel to A.A.G-I. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2.3.2007 (Annexure-3), passed by the learned Collector of the district of Gopalganj, in Mutation Revision Case no.8 of 2006 (Bishwanath Singh Versus Chandra Shekhar Mishra) whereby, revision application in terms of Section 16 of the Bihar Tenants’ Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973( hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), preferred by the petitioner, has been rejected. I have perused the records and considered the submissions of the parties. It relates to the mutation of the following lands :- Khata No. Khesra No. Area 93 84 7 K. 10 Dhur 195 4 K. 17 Dhur 294 8 K. 12 Dhur 318 14 K. 16 Dhur 1 Bigha 15 K. 15 dhurs. The petitioner had filed an application for mutation which - 2 - was allowed by order dated 20.11.2003 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned Anchal Adhikari, Kuchai-Kot in the district of Gopalganj. Aggrieved by this order, respondent no.5 herein ( Chandra Shekhar Mishra) preferred the appeal in terms of the ‘Act’ which was allowed by the order dated 31.7.2006 (Annexure-2), passed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Gopalganj, in Mutation Appeal No.10 of 2005-2006 ( Chandra Shekhar Mishra Vrs. Bishwanath Singh and another). The order of the learned Anchal Adhikari was set aside and it was directed that the land in question may be mutated in the name of respondent no.5 herein. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred revision application which has been rejected by the impugned order. It appears that the petitioner had set up his claim for mutation on the basis of registered sale deed dated 12.8.1942. It is not clear whether this document was dated 12.8.1942 or 14.8.1942. However, the same does not make any difference for the disposal of the present writ petition. The petitioner was unable to satisfy the learned appellate authority and the learned revisional authority that he had acquired title of the lands in question by a registered sale deed. On the contrary, he found that respondent no.5 herein was in possession of the lands and was also paying rent and was able to produce rent receipts. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be faulted. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. It goes without - 3 - saying that it will be open to the aggrieved party to move civil court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of right, title and interest. sudip ( S. K. Katriar,J )