IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19331 of 2010 SUSHILA DEVI W/O SHRI SUKHDEO DAS, R/O VILL- MANIJHIYAMA, P.O. SINGHAUL, P.S. KAZARA, DIST. LAKHISARAI. --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, LAKHISARAI 2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, LAKHISARAI 3. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, SURYAGARHA, DIST. LAKHISARAI 4. ASHOK TANTI 5. JAI RAM TANTI 6. DALEEP TANTI ( 4 TO 6 SONS OF GOVIND TANTI) (ALL RESPONDENT NOS. 4 TO 6 ARE R/O VILL-MANIJHIYAMA, P.O.SINGHAUL, P.S. KAZARA, DIST. LAKHISARAI) ---- RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. Harshwardhan Sahay, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, A.C. to AAG-4. ----------- 02. 01.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The present application arises out of a mutation proceeding . Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 25.08.2010 passed by the Collector, Lakhisarai in case no. 03/06-07, whereby the appeal preferred by private respondent nos. 4 to 6 (sons of Govind Tanti) has been allowed observing as under:- ^^mi;qZDr lHkh leh{kk vfHkys[k ij miyC/k dkxtkr ,oa foK vf/koDrk ds cgl foUnq ds vk/kkj ij dh xbZ gSA leh{kksijkar okn dk eq[; rF; tks lR;kfir rF; gS n`f"Vxr gksrk gSA ¼1½ fuEu U;k;ky; mi lekgrkZ Hkwfe lq/kkj ds vkns'k esa rF; dh Hkwy gS rFkk lk{;ksa dh vuns[kh dh xbZ gS] tks fof/k lEer ugha gSA ¼2½ vapy vf/kdkjh] lw;Zx<+k dk vkns'k rF; ds vk/kkj ij ikfjr gS tks fof/k ekU; gSA ¼3½ fodzsrk yq[kks rkarh ds iRuh dks LoRo vf/kdkj 2 vkSj fodzh dk gd fu;fer LoRo okn 15@69 ds fujLr vkns'k ds ckn ugha curk gS] fQj Hkh fodz; i= esa izfrdwy rF; n'kkZ dj fodz; i= fy[kuk voS/k gSA vr% larq"V gksdj vihykFkhZ ds vkosnu i= dks Lohd`r djrh gSA vf/koDrkvksa dks fn[kk nsaA** Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ramlal Tanti was the recorded tenant in respect of the land in question who executed a will along with his wife Manakwa Devi in favour of the Lukho Tanti on 30.09.1961. A Probate proceeding was instituted which was allowed by order dated 26.09.1969. Wife of Ramlal Tanti, namely, Manakwa Devi preferred first Appeal no. 399 of 1969 in this Court. A Division Bench of this Court after hearing both the sides allowed the same and set aside the order passed by learned Additional District Judge-IV, Munger. It is the stand of the petitioner that now Manakwa Devi is also dead and as such Lukho Tanti would derive title on the strength of law of inheritance or succession. The case of the other side appears to be that Ramlal Tanti was not issueless. He had one daughter called Chameli Devi. It appears that private respondents herein claimed the land through deed of gift executed by aforesaid Chameli Devi. This Court, having regard to the aforesaid facts appearing from record as well as in view of the findings/observations made by learned Collector in his order dated 14.10.2003, as also keeping in view the fact that all these issues of facts are being raised in mutation proceeding is not 3 inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Petitioner, if so advised, may institute appropriate suit for the relief(s) prayed for in the application. The application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)