IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10475 of 2011 Sanuf Mahto SON OF RAMPAL MAHTO RESIDENT OF RACHIAHI, P.S. MATIHANI, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF BARAINA BLOCK DHAMDAHA, P.S. SARSI DISTRICT PURNEA. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. THE COLLECTOR, BEGUSARAI. 3. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, MATIHANI, BEGUSARAI. 4. THE HALKA KARAMCHARI MATIHANI BLOCK, BEGUSARAI. 5. GUJO SINGH SON OF BHAIYA LAL SINGH RESIDENT OF RAMDIRI, BLOCK MATIHANI, BEGUSARAI. ----------- 2 28/07/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Though private respondent no. 5 has been impleaded as a party but looking at the nature of the order which this Court is going to pass, there is no necessity of issuing notices as such to him. Petitioner has filed an application for mutation of certain land in his favour before the Circle Officer, Matihani in the district of Begusarai. His claim is based on certain Khatian which he has and based on certain genealogical table which he has annexed. No decision is being taken by the Circle Officer i.e. respondent no. 3 on the application of the petitioner. - 2 - But from the material which has been brought on record it seems that there is some objection from certain quarters, especially respondent no. 5. That could be one of the reasons that the Circle Officer may be feeling difficulty in allowing the application of the petitioner forthwith. Whatever be the dispute, if an application has been made by the petitioner, the Circle Officer has a duty to hear the parties to the dispute including the person who has raised objection and then take a decision one way or the other. Keeping the matter pending does not help the situation, however, difficult it may be in the eyes of the authorities saddled with the responsibility. This writ application, therefore, is disposed of with a direction upon the Circle Officer (respondent no. 3) that after hearing the parties to the dispute including the objections which have been filed before him by issuing notice to all and take a decision if the petitioner and the private respondent co-operate within a reasonable time frame. In this regard the Court fixes the maximum time of six months from the date of production or communication of a copy of this order. - 3 - This writ application stands disposed of with the direction aforesaid. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)