IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.333 of 2009 1. Lagandeo Mahto 2. Baliram Mahto 3. Angad Mahto All are son of Late Jamadar Mahto 4. Silochani kunwar, wife of Late Jamadar Mahto All ( 1 to 4) are resident of village Jagadishpur, P.S. Maker, District Saran 5. Krishna Devi D/o Late Jamadar Mahto and wife of Shri Jay Kishun Mahto, resident of Village Jagadishpur, P.S. Maker, District Saran. 6. Chinta Devi D/o Late Jamadar Mahto and wife of Lalan Mahto, resident of Village Dhanukai, P.S. Mashrakh, District Saran 7. Anita Devi, D/o Late Jamadar Mahto and wife of Satendra Mahto, resident of Village- West Jahara, P.S. Maker, District Saran 8. Prabhawati Devi, D/o Late Jamadar Mahto, and wife of Vijay Mahto, resident of Village- Rampur, P.,S. Isuapur, District Saran ..... Petitioners/ Appellants VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra 3. The Collector, saran, Chapra 4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Marhaurah, Saran 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Marhaurah, Saran 6. The Anchal Adhikari Marhaurah, Saran 7. The Circle Inspector, Marhaurah, Saran 8. Janardan Prasad 9. Wakil Prasad 10.Chandrashekhar Prasad 11.Lal Babu Prassad All Res. (8 to 11) are sons of late Ajab Narayan Singh 12.Most. Sumani Kunwar, wife of Late Ajab Narayan Singh 13.Sitwanti Devi, D/o Late Ajab Narayan Singh All are resident of Village Kolhua, P.O. Karanpura, P.S. Marhaurah, District Saran ....... Respondents/ Respondents. 2 3 20.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. This appeal is directed against the order of the Writ Court dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellants in view of admitted position that in the civil suit and related First Appeal the subject matter of the dispute has been decided against the appellants. Second Appeal preferred by them is still pending. However, the appellants want entries in the revenue records by way of mutation to be in their favour even though they have lost in the First Appeal. Interfering with the impugned order of the learned Commissioner even on ground of jurisdiction, will amount to allowing revenue records to show a position which is not warranted as per subsisting decree of the civil court. In such circumstances, the Writ Court has rightly relied upon judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court and has declined to interfere on the ground that writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to perpetuate an illegality. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 3 1997(2) PLJR 996, to show that due to amendment of the law, no revision was maintainable before the Commissioner. That aspect has rightly been dealt with by the Writ Court, as indicated above. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. It goes without saying that outcome of the Second Appeal is bound to govern the rights of the parties one way or the other. (Shiva Kirti Singh,ACJ) (Shyam Kishore Sharma,J.) sk