IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9337 of 2007 Brijraj Singh, son of Late Ghurbari Koeri alias Ghurbari Singh , resident of village- Ramgarh, P.S. Ramgarh, District-Kaimur (Bhabua) --------- Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Bihar 2. Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Kaimur 3. Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Mohania, Kaimur 4. Anchal Adhikari, Ramgarh, Kaimur 5. Mostt. Sonamoti Kuer wife of Chamru Sah 6. Ravi Shankar Gupta 7. Ramesh Prasad Gupta, both sons of Chamaru Sah, respondent no. 5, 6 and 7 all residents of Village-Gorshara, P.S. Ramgarh, District- Kaimur ----- Respondents. --------------- 2. 11.2.2009 Heard Dr. Pankaj for the petitioner, and Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Advocate No.6. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.7.2005 (Annexure- 6),passed by the learned Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Kaimur (Bhabua), in Mutation Revision Case No. 47 of 2002-03, whereby he has rejected the revision application preferred by the present petitioner under the provisions of the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Respondent nos. 1 to 4 have placed on record their counter affidavit. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the present petitioner had filed an application for mutation of Khesra no.163, covering area of 3 decimals, appertaining to Khata No.128. The same on consideration was rejected by order dated 10.11.2001 (Annexure-4), passed by the learned Anchal Adhikari, Ramgarh, district Kaimur, in Mutation Case No. 47 of 2002. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred revision application which was rejected 2 by order dated 16.10.2002 (Annexure-5), passed by Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Mohania, in Mutation Appeal No. 38 of 2001-02. The petitioner preferred revision application which has been rejected by the impugned order. The common ground on which the three authorities have passed their orders is that respondent nos. 6 and 7 herein claim title to the land in question on the strength of registered deed of absolute sale, and are in possession of the same. It has further been held by the three authorities that the parties are already locked in a title suit. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. The validity of the impugned order shall abide the result of the suit . Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. )