IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11472 of 2001 1. Ram Ashish Upadhya, 2. Ram Pravesh Upadhya, 3. Ram Dinesh Upadhya, All sons of late Mukteshwar Upadhya, 4, Manrajo Kuer, wife of late Mukteshwar Upadhya, All residents of village Bhuin, P.O. Saisar, Police Station- Dinara, District Rohtas at Sasaram. ..... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram. 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Bikramganj, District- Rohtas at Sasaram. 4. The Anchaladhikari, Dinara, District- Rohtas. 5. Bijay Kumar Pathak, 6. Basant Kumar Pathak, Both sons of Sudarshan Pathak. 7. Guddu Pathak, son of Ram Ekbal Pathak. 8. Ramjee Pathak, 9. Shivjee Pathak, Both sons of Late Mohan Pathak, resident of village Bhuin, P.O. Saisar, Police Station- Dinara, District- Rohtas at Sasaram. .... Respondents. ----------- 05- 7.11.2008 Heard Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi for the petitioners, and Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey for respondent nso.5 to 7. It arises out of mutation proceedings and is directed against the appellate order dated 3.12.1999 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned L.R.D.C., Bikramganj, in Mutation Appeal No.34 of 1998- 99 (Bijay Kumar Pathak Vs. Ram Ashish Upadhyay), whereby the order of the learned 2 Anchal Adhikari, Dinara, dated 11.10.1998 (Annexure-6), passed in Mutation Case No.454/98-99, has been set aside. It is further directed against the revisional order dated 28.5.2001 (Annexure-2), passed by the learned Collector of the district of Rohtas at Sasaram, in Mutation Revision Case No.36 of 1999 (Ram Ashish Upadhyay Vs. Bijay Kumar Pathak), whereby the order of the learned L.R.D.C. has been upheld. 2. Mukteshwar Upadhya, the father of the present petitioners, and Mohan Pathak and his wife, Monako Devi had entered into a registered deed of exchange whereby the parties had exchanged the lands mentioned therein. Copies of the two registered deeds of exchange are marked Annexures 3 and 3/A of the writ petition. Mohan Pathak alienated 45 decimals of lands which he had received in exchange. This was followed by the unilateral cancellation deed dated 4.12.1983, whereby Mohan Pathak and Monako Devi unilaterally cancelled the registered deed of exchange. Mukteshwar Upadhya had in the meanwhile got the lands which he had received in exchange, mutated in him. The vendees of Mohan Pathak 3 had also got mutated the said 45 decimals of land in their favour. After the death of Mukteshwar Upadhya, the present petitioners filed an application for mutation of the lands. The same was registered as Mutation Case No.454 of 1998-99 before the Anchal Adhikari, Dinara. He observed in his order dated 11.10.1998 (Annexure-6), that it was not possible for Mohan Pathak to return the lands back to the petitioners. He, therefore, ordered for mutation of the lands as per the registered deed of exchange in favour of the present petitioners. Aggrieved by this order respondent nos.5 to 9 preferred appeal bearing Mutation Appeal No.34 of 1998-99 which has been allowed by the order dated 3.12.1999 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned L.R.D.C., Bikramganj, whereby he has set aside the order of the learned Anchal Adhikari of 11.10.1998 (Annexure-6). The present petitioners preferred revision application which was registered as Mutation Revision Case No.36 of 1999 (Ram Ashish Upadhya Vs. Bijay Kumar Pathak), which has been rejected by order dated 28.5.2001 (Annexure-2), passed by the 4 learned Collector of the district of Rohtas at Sasaram. 3. On a perusal of the materials on record and consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it prima- facie appears to me that the registered deed of exchange is a bi-lateral agreement and could have been cancelled or set aside either by the parties to the deed of exchange or by a court of competent jurisdiction. The same could not have been cancelled by Mohan Pathak unilaterally. 4. After arguments at length Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.5 to 7, submits that the appellate order (Annexure-1) and the revisional order (Annexure-2) may be set aside with the liberty to him to move the civil court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of right, title and interest. Learned counsel for the petitioners has no objection to the same. 5. In that view of the matter, the appellate order dated 3.12.1999 (Annexure-1), passed in Mutation Appeal No.34 of 1998-99, and the revisional order dated 28.5.2001 5 (Annexure-2), passed in Mutation Revision Case No.36 of 1999, are set aside. It goes without saying that it will be open to respondent nos.5 to 9 to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of their right, title and interest with respect to the lands in question which shall be adjudicated on its own merit and completely ignoring the observations made by the learned authorities below or by this Court. 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (S.K. Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/