IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10500 of 2010 BALIRAM SINGH , SON OF RANJIT SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MADHOPUR, P.S. GONAHA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. ----- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH 3. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, NARKATIYAGANJ, WEST CHAMPARAN 4. CIRCLE OFFICER, GANAHA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH ------ RESPONDENTS 1ST SET 5. ANAND KISHORE SINGH, SON OF RAM CHANDRA SINGH 6. RAM CHANDRA SINGH, SON OF THAKUR SINGH, BOTH RESIDENT OF MADHOPUR, P.S. GONAHA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. 7. USHA KUMAR @ USHA DEVI, WIFE OF RAVINDRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF CHATARBHUJAWAR, P.S. SHIKARPUR, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN, PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MADHOPUR, P.S. GONAHA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. ------ RESPONDENTS 2ND SET ----------- 4 12.10.2010 There appears to be a dispute between the heirs of Thakur Prasad. The case of the petitioner is that there was an oral family partition in the year 1975 whereas the case of the respondents is that the oral partition took place in the year 1962. It appears that some sale deeds are under challenge by way of filing a suit which were executed by Thakur Prasad. A partition suit numbered as 99 of 2010 has been filed by the brother of the respondent no. 5. The present order under challenge is passed by the Additional Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah under Section 16 setting 2 aside the order of the D.C.L.R., Narkatiyaganj, West Champaran dated 20.2.2009, by which he has allowed the mutation application filed on behalf of the petitioner. The order of the D.C.L.R., Narkatiyaganj, West Champaran is prima facie illegal in view of the fact that the notices were not issued to the respondents and an ex-parte order has been passed in favour of the petitioner. The Additional Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah has set aside the order on the ground that it is an ex-parte order and procedure for mutation has not been followed by the D.C.L.R., Narkatiyaganj, West Champaran. On the other hand, it is argued that the Additional Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah has no power of revision under the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. Accepting the arguments of both the parties that both the orders have to be set aside for the reasons mentioned aforesaid. The fact remains that a Title Suit is pending with respect to the lands in question and, therefore, the question of mutating the name or cancelling the mutation 3 of any one party does not arise in this case. Status quo ought to be retained with respect to the lands in question. The names should be recorded in the revenue records only after the final decision of the Title Suit pending with respect to partition between the family members i.e. the petitioner and the respondents and others. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)