IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9101 of 2007 DEVANTI DEVI wife of Bhaiya Ram Singh, resident of village Chiksil, Post Office – Chougayeen Bhaya Karath, PS Karakat,Distt. Rohtas at Sasaram …… Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram Distt. Rohtas 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Bikramganj, Distt. Rohtas 4. The Anchal Adhikari, Karakat Distt. Rohtas 5. Nand Kumar Tiwari son of late Kashi Nath Tiwari, resident of village Mangra PO Bhakura, PS Karakat, Distt. Rohtas at Sasaram ……. Respondents 1st set 6. Most. Lilawati Kunwar wife of late Saroj Tiwari @ Pramod Tiwari resident of village Mangra PO Bhakura PS Karakat Distt. Rohtas at Sasaram …….. Respondent 2nd set ----------- 03- 12.2.2009 Heard Mr. Jai Prakash Singh for the petitioner, and learned AC to Govt. Pleader no.16. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.5.2007 (Annexure 3), passed by the learned Collector of the district of Rohtas in Mutation Revision Case no.22/2006, whereby he has, in purported exercise of powers under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenants’ Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, rejected the revision application preferred by the present petitioner. It arises out of mutation proceedings and is with respect to Khesra no.55, covering an area of 30 ½ decimals, appertaining to Khata no.100, Mouza Chiksil, district Rohtas. 2. It appears to me on a perusal of the materials on record and consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties that the present petitioner had filed an application before the learned Anchal Adhikari, Karakat, for mutation of the land in question in her favour. The same was allowed by order dated 27.11.2004 (Annexure - 2 - 1), and it was ordered that the same may be mutated in the name of the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order, respondent nos. 5 and 6 preferred Appeal Case No. 8/2005-06, and Mutation Appeal Case no. 9/2005-06 (Nand Kumar Tiwary v. Devanti Devi & Ors.), which was allowed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bikramganj, Rohtas, by his order dated 28.1.2006 (Annexure 2). The learned appellate authority set aside the order of the learned Anchal Adhikari, and directed for mutation of the lands in question in favour the appellants before him (respondent nos. 5 and 6 herein) on the ground that the appellants therein had purchased the lands in question by registered deed(s) of absolute sale which were of earlier date than those in favour of the present petitioner. The learned appellate authority also felt dissatisfied with the local inspection before the learned appellate authority. The present petitioner, therefore, preferred the revision application which has been rejected by the impugned order. I must candidly state that the impugned order passed by the learned revisional authority is a laconic order and is unsatisfactory. He did not assign his own reasons while rejecting the revision application, and entirely adopts the reasonings assigned by the learned Anchal Adhikari. He was duty bound to examine all issues of facts and law raised before him which has not been done. From this angle, it is a case of abdication of essential duties and functions. However, I am convinced that he has reached the correct conclusion by upholding the appellate order. 3. The writ petition is dismissed. It goes without saying that - 3 - it will be open to the parties to approach a civil court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of right, title and interest. ( S K Katriar ) mrl