1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6105 of 2002 Lallan Yadav @ Lallan Singh Yadav, Son of Late Hardeo Yadav, resident of village- Mahadah, P.S. Buxar, District- Buxar. ----- Petitioner VERSUS 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Collector, District- Buxar 3. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Buxar 4. Circle Officer, Buxar 5. Chandrika Yadav son of Late Ram Bachchan Yadav, resident of village- Mahadah, P.s. Buxar, District- Buxar. ---- Respondents ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. S.N.Singh Mr. V.Nath Mr. Md. W. Rahman For the Opp. Party : Mr. S.P.Dwivedy. ************* 4/ 5.2.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.5 as well as State. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 15.2.2002 (Annexure-4) passed by the Collector, Buxar (respondent No.2) in Revision Case No.76 of 2000 whereby the petitioner’s revision application was dismissed and order dated 29.6.2000 (Annexure-3) passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Buxar (respondent No.3) was affirmed. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that by order dated 24.5.1997, the name of the petitioner, which was mutated over the land, in question, in terms of order passed in the Mutation Case No. 980/1992-1993, was recalled as contained in Annexure-2 and 2 the order was affirmed on appeal by DCLR as contained in Annexure-4 and the revision application was dismissed by the respondent-Collector as per its order dated 15.2.2002. Learned counsel submits that while passing the order on the revision, the Revisional Court committed serious error of law by ignoring the order of revision passed in favour of the petitioner in Mutation Case No.980/1992-1993 which would have clearly shown the possession of the petitioner in respect to 3 decimals of land, out of total land measuring about 10 decimals. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that the vendor of the petitioner was not allotted specific plot, in question, with respect to 1/3rd share, although she was declared as legal representative. That having not done, the petitioner could not have come into possession of the land under the sale-deed which is said to have been executed by his vendor. Upon hearing the submissions of the parties and their respective pleadings, it appears that in the mutation proceeding the paramount consideration is possession of the parties claiming mutation over the land in question followed by prima facie title. The petitioner claims to have purchased the land, in question, through the registered sale executed by Sushila Devi who was having 1/3rd share in the property and thereafter the petitioner was put in possession of the land in question followed by mutation of his name as per Mutation Case No.980/1992-1993. In such a situation, it was not proper for the Circle Officer 3 to recall its order and pass fresh order of mutation virtually setting aside the earlier order passed by its predecessor. Be that as it may, it, however, appears that the Revisional Court while disposing of the revision application ought to have looked into these aspects of the matter and thereafter the revision application should have been disposed of. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it appears to this Court that the order dated 15.2.2002 as contained in Annexure-4 is not sustainable in law. The same as such is quashed and the matter is remitted back to Respondent No.2 to pass fresh order in accordance with law considering all the relevant materials on the record after hearing both sides. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with above observation/direction. chauhan (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)