IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7143 of 2004 RAM BISHWAS SINGH S/O Late Jamadar Singh resident of Village Kharagi Chhap, P.O. and P.S. Mirganj, Anchal Hathua, District- Gopalganj. ---------------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Collector, Gopalganj. 3. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms Hathua, District- Gopalganj. 4. The Circle Officer, Hathua District- Gopalganj. 5. Sri Binod Kumar Singh S/O Baleshwar Singh resident of Village Kharagi Chhap, P.O. & P.S. Mirganj, Anchal Hathua, District- Gopalganj. --------------Respondents. ----------- 3. 26.11.2010 The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexures-1, 2 and 3 passed in mutation case. The heirs of Ram Rekha Rai has filed an application that their name should be mutated in the revenue records, by partitioning the lands between the petitioner and respondents. Admittedly, all the lands are recorded in the names of Ram Rekha Rai. The Jamindari also runs in the name of Ram Rekha Rai. Petitioner case is that his ancestor Jamadar Singh had purchased a piece of land in the year 1990 out of his exclusive income, through a sale deed and as such that piece of land could not have been divided half and half by the revenue authorities for the purpose of mutating the name of the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand draws the Courts attention to the order passed in the appeal, where it has been specifically stated that in the year 1915 Chandrika Rai, the khatiyani raiyat 2 had mortgaged the land in question to Ram Rekha Rai and the money had been utilized for the purpose of purchasing the plot which is in dispute as such, the Jamabandi of the transferred land, which are in dispute between the parties was opened in the name of Ram Rekha Rai. On the basis of the aforesaid fact learned counsel for the respondent submits, that had the property in question been purchased exclusively by the ancestor of the petitioner it would not have been recorded in the name of Ram Rekha Rai. The very fact that it was recorded in the name of Ram Rekha Rai indicates that it was purchased out of joint family funds. Learned counsel for the petitioner also emphasis on the fact that the revenue authorities do not have the power to mutate the name by partitioning the lands in question. The dispute relates to plots in Khata No. 7, which have been mutated half in the name of the petitioner and half in the name of the respondents. It is said that this ought to have been done by the Civil Court. The entry in the revenue records is a rebuttable evidence and naturally would be subject to any decree of the competent Court of law. The petitioner is given the liberty to file a civil suit for a partition with respect to Khata No. 7, if so advice. This writ application is thus disposed of. Anand Kr. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)