IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.381 of 2010 1. Birendra Kumar Raja 2. Dharmendra Kumar Chakrawarty All sons of late Gopi Chand Arya, resident of Mohalla-Baignabad, Town of Biharsharif, P.O. & P.S. Rajgir, District Nalanda …….Appellants Versus 1. Mishri Lal son of late Pokhi Sao, resident of Mohalla- Baignabad Town of Biharsharif, P.O. & P.S. Rajgir, District Nalanda 2. The State of Bihar 3. The Collector of District Nalanda 4. The Deputy Collector(Land Reforms), Rajgir, District Nalanda 5. The Circle Officer, Rajgir, District Nalanda …….Respondents ----------- 2 14.3.2011 The instant Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred against the order dated 18.1.2010 passed in C.W.J.C.No.258 of 2010 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition directing the Circle officer, Rajgir to rectify the mistake committed in order dated 5.6.2009 as it was in teeth of the earlier order dated 31.7.2008 passed in C.W.J.C.No.14771 of 2006. The appellants have raised the grievance that the order dated 18.1.2010 has been passed by learned Single Judge without affording an opportunity of hearing to them. 2 Before, we take up the issue involved and the point raised by the appellants, it would be apt to notice the fact of this case in short. One Birendra Kumar Raja and others filed filed C.W.J.C. No.14771 of 2006 assailing mutation of land in favour of respondent no.5 Mishri Lal. In the mutation appeal, the Collector by order dated 13.9.2006 affirmed the order of mutation passed by the Circle Officer in favour of Mishri Lal. The appellants, Birendra Kumar Raja and others challenged the order of Collector of mutation passed in favour of Mishri Lal vide C.W.J.C.No.14771 of 2006. The learned Single Judge by order dated 31.7.2008 affirmed the order of mutation passed by the District Collector in favour of Respondent no.5 with a rider that the same would be subject to the decision in Second Appeal No.159 of 1988. Thereafter, Mishri Lal, respondent no.1 in this appeal, filed an application before the Circle Officer for mutation of his name in the record of rights which was rejected by order dated 5.6.2009 passed in Mutation Case No.5/2007-08. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Mishri Lal preferred C.W.J.C.No.258 of 2010. The case of Mishri Lal is that 3 as learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C.No.14771 of 2006 upheld the order passed by the District Collector in appeal directing mutation in favour of respondent no.5, the Circle Officer ought to have mutated his name in record. The learned Judge further observed that not passing an order of mutation in favour of the petitioner Mishri Lai would be in violation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge finding that order of Circle Officer, Bagha was in teeth of order dated 31.7.2008 passed in C.W.J.C.No.14771 of 2006 directing him to be physically present on 18.1.2010. The Circle Officer on 18.1.2010 admitted that his predecessor without appreciating import of order, dated 31.7.2008 in C.W.J.C. No. 14771 of 2006 passed order dated 5.6.2009. The learned Single Judge reminded that the order dated 5.6.2009 was in teeth of the order of this court and as such directed him to rectify the mistake committed in the order dated 5.6.2009. The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 18.1.2010 passed in C.W.J.C.No.258 of 2010 whereby the Circle Officer, Rajgir was directed to 4 KHAN mutate the name of respondent no.1 Mishri Lal in respect of land in question. Having heard counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, we find that the learned Single Judge has not passed any fresh order on 18.1.2010 in C.W.J.C.No.258 of 2010 rather directed the respondent Circle Officer, Rajgir to comply with the order dated 31.7.2008 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1477 of 2006. By order dated 31.7.2008 the learned Single Judge observed that mutation order passed in favour of respondent no.1 Mishri Lal would be valid till the decision in Second Appeal No.159 of 1988. The appellants do not dispute that Second Appeal is still pending. In view of aforesaid facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order dated 18.1.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C.No.258 of 2010. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. (S.K.Katriar,J) (S.P.Singh,J) 5