IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7806 of 2008 1. SHYAM PRASAD SAH 2. Ramu Kumar Sah 3. Tribhuwan Kumar Sah All are sons of Jogendra Sah, All are resident of village-Uttar Maheshwari (Netaji Chowk), Ward No. 7, P.S. Jogbani, District-Araria…..Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, Araria 3. The Deputy Commission Land Reforms , Forbesganj, Distt.- Araria 4. The Anchal Adhikari, Forbesganj, District-Araria 5. Yogendra Sah 6. Shankar Sah Both Nos. 5 & 6 are sons of Late Shivraj Sah 7. Most. Sail Kumari Devi, W/o Late Rajendra Sah, All are residents of village-Uttar Maheshwari , Netaji Chowk, Ward No. 7, P.S. Jogbani, District- Araria……………Respondents. *********** For the petitioners: Mr. Girish Prasad Gupta For the state: Shalini Rani A.C. to G.A.-V _________ 2. 21.04.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for the state. Petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 28.8.2007 passed by the Collector, Araria in Revision Case No. 33 of 2003-04/156 of 2004-05 whereby the order 22.10.2003 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms , Forbesganj in Appeal Case No. 63 of 2002-03 has been affirmed and the order dated 15.11.2002 passed by the Circle Officer , Forbesganj in Case No. 458 of 2002-03 has been set aside. On perusal of the revisional order, I find that revision application was disposed of by the Collector for the reason that the name of the respondent, Sheoraj Sah was not expunged from the records of the case though he died on 05.08.2006 and - 2 - his legal heirs were not substituted. The revisional court has recorded a finding that order cannot be passed in favour or against a dead person, as such, the revision application is disposed of. On merit, considering claim of the parties, the finding has been recorded by the revisional court that Anchal Adhikari, Forbesganj has passed order dated 15.11.2002 on the basis of an agreement produced by the applicant even without issuing any notice to the person in whose name, Jamabandi was earlier created. The appellate court has also recorded a finding that the agreement which is the basis for petitioner’s claim for right, title and possession over the land is being challenged by the same person who is said to have executed an agreement and with respect to that a Title Suit is pending before the competent court of civil jurisdiction. I do not find that the findings recorded by the appellate court and the revisional court are wrong. The reason which has been assigned by the appellate court and the revisional court by not allowing the claim of the petitioner for mutation and setting aside the order passed by the Circle Officer mutating petitioner’s name in Case No. 458 of 2002-03 do not suffer from any error. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. However, the petitioner will have option to re-agitate his claim for mutation subject to the result of Title Suit pending before the civil court. akv (Mridula Mishra, J.)