IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9845 of 2007 ----------- Sukhdeo Roy, son of Late Narayan Roy, resident of Village and P.O. Sathiauta, Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Vaishali ------ Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Collector, Vaishali 3. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hajipur 4. Circle Officer, Lalganj, District Vaishali 5. Dip Narayan Shah, son of Late Prasad Shah 6. Chandrika Shah, son of Late Prasad Shah, both serial nos. 5 and 6 are resident of Village Puraina, Police Station Lalganj, District Vaishali 7. Jogendra Sahni, son of Late Parmeshwar Sahni 8. Rampat Sahani, son fo Late Parmeshwar Sahni 9. Nathuni Sahni, son of Late Jugeshwar Sahni 10. Basoo Sahni, son of Late Jugeshwar Sahni, all serial nos. 7 to 10 are residents of Village Puraina, Police Station Lalganj, Dsitrict Vaishali. --------------- 2. 16.2.2009 Heard Mr. Partha Sarthy for the petitioner, and Mr. Binod Kumar, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel No.5 for respondent nos. 1 to 4. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.2.2007 (Annexure-4), passed by the learned Collector, Vaishali in Case No.R-08/2004-05 (Dip Narayan Sah & Ors. Vrs. Sukhdeo Rai & Ors.), whereby he has allowed the revision application preferred by respondent nos. 5 and 6 herein, and has ordered for mutation of the lands in question in their favour. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It relates to mutation of land measuring 1 Katha and 1 dhur, being portion of R.S. Plot nos.226 and 227 towards south, under R.S. Kahta no. 92 (Ka), situate in village Sathiauta, Circle Lalganj, in the district of Vaishali. Respondent nos. 5 and 6 herein had filed an application for mutation of these lands under the provisions of the 2 Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which was allowed by the learned Anchal Adhikari, Lalganj, by his order dated 24.7.2002, and it was directed that the same be mutated in the names of respondent nos. 5 and 6. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal which was allowed by order dated 28.10.2003 (Annexure-2), passed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hajipur, in Mutation Appeal Case No. 13 of 2003-04 (Sukhdeo Rai Vrs. Dip Narayan Sahu & Ors.), whereby the appeal was allowed, the order of the learned Anchal Adhikari was set aside, and it was ordered that the lands in question may be mutated in the name of the petitioner herein. Aggrieved by this order, respondent nos. 5 and 6 preferred revision application which has been allowed by the impugned order, the order of the learned appellate authority has been set aside, and that of the learned first authority has been restored. It appears that respondent nos. 5 and 6 herein claims mutation of the lands in question in their names on the ground that they had acquired title of the of the same by means of a registered deed of absolute sale which was executed on 24.11.2001, and was registered on 28.11.2001. His sale deed was executed by respondent nos. 7 to 10 herein, namely, Jogendra Sahni, his two sons, and Rampat Sahni. On the other hand, the petitioner claims title of the property in question by means of registered sale deed which was executed as well as registered on 26.11.2001, executed by Most. Marachhia, widow of Sukon Sahni. The genealogy of the 3 vendors is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: Rameshwar Sahni Jugeshwar Munnar Jogendra Rampat Sagar Sukon Sahni Sahni Sahni Sahni Sahni Sahni Jagdish Nathuni Banso Widow Marachia Law is well settled that once a document is registered, conveyance of the property dates back to the date of execution of the sale deed. Therefore, respondent nos. 5 and 6 acquired title to the property on 24.11.2001. The petitioner’s sale deed was executed as well as registered on 26.11.2001. Further more, the learned revisional authority has held that respondents nos. 5 and 6 are in possession of the lands in question. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. It goes without saying that it will be open to the aggrieved party to institute a suit before the civil court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of right, title and interest. The writ petition is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. )