Letters Patent Appeal No.1263 OF 1999 (Against the common judgement dated 22.9.1999 passed in C.W.J.C. No.6755/91 and 6756/ 91 by a Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court). 1. SURESH CHANDRA PRASAD 2. SUBHASH CHANDRA SINHA, 3. BIRESHWAR PRASAD SINHA, all sons of Late Babu Umesh Chandra Prasad Sinha, resident of village and post Office- Dighi Kalan, Police Station- Hajipur Sadar, District- Vaishali. --------Writ Petitioners/Appellants. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Additional Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur, 3. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Vaishali at Hajipur, 4. Circle Officer, Hajipur, District-Vaishali. 5. Smt. Rita Devi, wife of Shri Bimal Kumar, resident of village and P.O. Sahan, P.S. Goraul, District- Vaishali. 6. Shri Umeshwar Prasad Singh, son of Late Babu Harishankar Prasad Singh, resident of village and Post Office-Dighi Kalan, Police Station- Hajipur Sadar, District- Vaishali. ---------Respondents/Respondents. For the Appelalnts: V.K.P. Singh, Adv. For the State : Zaki Haider, A.C. to G.A. 10. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH Navin Sinha & D.K.S., JJ. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. The present appeal has been preferred against the common judgement 22.9.1999 in C.W.J.C. No.6755/91 and 6756/91. The present memo. arises out of the latter judgement. - 2 - The judgement under appeal notices the question involved that the Additional Collector had no revisional powers to set aside the order of the D.C.L.R. with regard to mutation, but declines to go into the question on the reasoning that mutation was only for the purpose of collection of revenue and ultimately did not affect title, declaration of which had to be obtained from a competent civil court. It appears that L.P.A. No.1274/99 arising out of C.W.J.C. No.6755/91 has been disposed by a Division Bench dated 26.6.2008 holding at paragraph-3 as follows:- “In the circumstances, this appeal is disposed of by declaring that the rent receipt filed by respondent no.5 on the basis of mutation allowed by the Circle Officer will not prejudice the title of the true owner of the property in question and this declaration is being given in view of the fact that respondent No.5 has already filed suit. Accordingly, it shall be at the risk of the respondent no.5 to deposit rent in terms of the order of the Circle Officer.” The present appeal stands disposed in similar terms. Patna High Court/ 11th May, 2010/ N.A.F.R./K.C. ( Navin Sinha, J.) ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)