IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13389 of 2010 1. VIMAL KUMAR S/O SHRI RAM TABAKYA SINGH R/O VILL CHHATOI, P.S.KURTHA, DISTT-ARWAL Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM COLLECTOR ARWAL 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS ARWAL 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER KURTHA, ARWAL 6. KAMLA THAKUR @ KAMLA HAJAM S/O LATE LALDHAR THAKUR R/O VILL CHHATOI, P.S.KURTHA, DISTT-ARWAL For the petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Md Hamid Akhtar, A.C. to A.A.G.-IX -------- 4 05.01.2011 Heard both sides. This matter arises out of a mutation proceeding. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 30.6.2010 passed in Mutation Revision Case No. 01/D.M/2008-09 ( Kamla Thakur @ Kamla Hajam versus Vimal Kumar) whereby the revision application preferred against the order dated 20.1.2009 passed by respondent Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Arwal in Mutation Appeal No. 01/2008-09 has been considered and rejected. While rejecting the revision application, it has been observed that a civil dispute is pending between the parties and as such the Circle Officer was not justified in allowing the claim in respect of the disputed land. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6 submits that this Court may not interfere with the order on the ground that mutation neither creates nor extinguishes any title. As per the observation of the revisional authorities, a civil dispute is already pending between the parties. From the appellate order dated 20.1.2009, it would appear that the petitioner has suppressed material facts. Petitioner - 2 - had earlier filed Mutation Case bearing Case No. 68/2002-03 which was not allowed by the respondent Anchal Adhikari on the ground that there is already a civil suit pending between the parties. With the change in the office of Circle Office, the petitioner again filed application for mutation giving rise to Mutation Case No. 1176/2007-08 wherein an order was passed in his favour. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. It appears from the appellate order read in light of averments made in the counter affidavit that petitioner had suppressed the aforesaid facts and obtained order in his favour by the Circle Officer. It further appears that a Title Appeal No. 22/1998 is pending before the Addl. District Judge, Jehanabad at the instance of Kamla Thakur (respondent No. 6) in which a petition for adding the present petitioner has already been filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has suppressed material facts and thereby obtained a favourable order passed by the Circle Officer as also the fact that a civil proceeding is pending in respect of the subject lands, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, it is observed that after disposal of the aforesaid appeal, the parties may approach the authorities for appropriate order. The application is dismissed. pkj (Kishore K. Mandal, J)