IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16835 of 2009 MOST.CHAMPA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE BALESHWAR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NATWAR, P.S. NATWAR, DISTRICT ROHTAS----PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECERTARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, PATNA, BIHAR. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, DEPARTMENT OF LAND REFORMS, PATNA, BIHAR. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHOJPUR, ARA. 5. THE D.C.L.R., JAGDISHPUR, DISTT. BHOJPUR. 6. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, BIHIYA, DIST. BHOJPUR. 7. MOHAN SINGH, SON OF YUVRAJ SINGH. 8. CHANDRAJIT SINGH, SON OF BHOJ RAJ SINGH, BOTH RESPONDENT NO 7 AND 8 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DIGHA, P.S. DHANGAI, DIST. BHOJPUR ----RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02. 03.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner vendor of sale deed dated 28.5.1993 is aggrieved by the order dated 18.9.2009 passed by the Collector, Bhojpur, Ara in Mutation Revision Case No.02 of 2009-10, Annexure-3, whereunder the learned Collector has set aside the appellate order dated 15.5.2009 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Jagdishpur and has affirmed the mutation order dated 20.6.1995 passed by the Circle Officer on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that perusal of the certified copy of the sale deed would indicate that the sale was subject to payment of the consideration amount, which was to be made at the time of exchange of equivalent and as the vendee, private respondent nos. 7 and 8 never paid the consideration amount, equivalents were never exchanged and the original sale deed was cancelled vide deed of cancellation dated 12.1.1994 and thereafter the original sale deed was obtained by the petitioner and she is in - 2 - possession of the sale deed. In appreciation of the aforesaid facts the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Jagdishpur set aside the mutation order passed by the Circle Officer, Bihiya but the learned Collector without appreciating the fact that the sale was neither complete nor the vendee was put in possession, set aside the appellate order and maintained the mutation order passed by the Circle Officer, Bihiya. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that for setting aside the sale deed dated 28.5.1993 petitioner should approach the competent civil court relying upon the evidence, namely, the deed of cancellation as also the original sale deed and the competent civil court should consider the case of the petitioner that the sale as evidenced from the deed dated 28.5.1993 was never complete for the failure of the vendee to pay the consideration amount and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The impugned order dated 18.9.2009, Annexure-3 passed by the Collector, Bhojpur, Ara shall be subject to the findings of the competent civil court. 5. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)