IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3391 of 2002 Raghunandan Jha, son of Late Jagmohan Jha, resident of Purani Bazar, Jhajha, P.O. & P.S. Jhajha, District- Jamui, Bihar. .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner, Muger Division, Munger. 3. The Collector, Jamui. 4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Jamui. 5. The Circle Officer, Jhajha Circle, At & P.O.- Jhajha, District- Jamui. ... Respondents 1st set. 6. Sita Ram Manjhi, son of Late Ram Tahal Manjhi. 7. Rabia Devi, widow of Late Ram Tahal Manjhi. Both residents of village- Nawadih Tola, Pipradih, P.O. & P.S.- Jhajha, District- Jamui. .... Respondent 2nd set. ----------- 03- 23.12.2008 Heard Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat for the petitioner, Mr. Anwar Karim, learned junior counsel to Standing Counsel No.5 for respondent nos.1 to 5, and learned counsel for respondent nos.6 and 7. It arises out of mutation proceeding and is directed against the order dated 21.1.1997 (Annexure-7), passed in favour of the private respondents whereby it has been ordered that the land in question may accordingly be mutated. Respondent nos.6 and 7 have placed on record their counter affidavit. 2. It appears that Ram Tahal Manjhi, father of Sitaram Manjhi (respondent no.6), 2 had filed an application for mutation of the following lands, which was registered as Misc. Case No.1 of 1992-93 (Ram Tahal Manjhi Vs. Raghunandan Jha): ekStk [kkrk [ksljk jdok uokMhg fiijkMhg 24 1499 0&16 The same was rejected by the order dated 23.8.1995 (Annexure-6). Ram Tahal Manjhi challenged the same by filing Mutation Revision Case No.6 of 1995-96 (Ram Tahal Majhi Vs. Raghunandan Jha), which was allowed by the order dated 21.1.1997 (Annexure-7), and it was directed that the land in question shall be mutated in the name of Ram Tahal Manjhi. The petitioner has placed his case for mutation on the ground of purchase from Ganga Majhi by a registered deed of absolute sale. 3. It appears to me on a perusal of the order in question that it raises a question of status and legal character of the vendor which cannot be decided in a writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. It will be open to the aggrieved party to institute a suit before a Civil court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of right, title and interest. It goes without 3 saying that the order passed by the learned revenue authorities in mutation proceedings shall not come in the way of adjudication of the suit. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/