IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10808 of 2011 Most. Sabura Khatoon wife of Late Ms. Soyab resident of village Gurihal P.S. Baisi District Purnea… …..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, 2. The District Collector, Purnea, 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Baisi, Purnea, 4. The Circle Officer, Baisi Block, District Purnea, 5. Ushman Gani son of Late Kalimuddin, resident of Village Sadipur Bhutha P.S Baisi District Purnea….. ….Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhirendra Kr. Jha, Advocate For Respondent No.5 : Mr. A. Narayan, Advocate, Mr. Amit Kr. Anand, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.N. Shahi, A.A.G.-14, Mr. Ritesh Kr. No.1, Advocate ……………. 2 16.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent no.5 and the State. Petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 10.2.2011 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Baisi, Purnea, respondent no.3, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected. Learned counsel submits that his appeal was dismissed earlier and thereafter revision was filed by the petitioner. The matter was remitted back by the Collector vide order dated 25.11.2008 passed in 2 Mutation Revision No.127/08, as contained in Annexure-4/1, to S.D.O. Baisi with a direction to get a local enquiry done regarding possession and to pass a speaking order after hearing all parties concerned. Thereafter the S.D.O., who was also in-charge of D.C.L.R., passed the impugned order. It appears that his case has been dismissed on the ground of limitation only. Learned counsel for respondent no.5 submits that as per the direction, the local inspection was done by the concerned authority and it has been found that respondent no.5 was in possession and the order has been passed on merit. However, it appears from the impugned order that the petitioner has also filed Title Suit No.03 of 2009 before the Sub-Judge I, Purnia which, according to the parties, is still pending. A copy of the plaint has been produced at the time of hearing by learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5 and it appears therefrom that for grant of decree for partition of the share of the petitioner, the suit has been filed and the petitioner, Sabura Khatoon is the 3 plaintiff who has sought relief for partition of her share with respect to plots described in Schedules “B” and “C”. The land in dispute in the present case also finds place in Schedule “C”. It is well settled that the revenue authorities while deciding the question of mutation do not decide the title of any party. In view thereof, this writ application is being disposed of with an observation that the order impugned would be subject to the result of the title suit. Sanjay-II. ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)