IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15670 of 2007 1. Kaushalya Devi, W/O Mohan Ram 2. Sheojee Ram, S/O Mohan Ram, 3. Ashok Ram, S/O Mohan Ram, all resident of Village Bararhi Kala P.O.Janrorh, P.S. Dinara, Distt. Rohtas ------------- Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector of the Distt. Sasaram 3. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms Bikramganj, Distt. Rohtas. 4. The Anchal Adhikari, P.O. Block Anchal Dinara, at Dihara, Distt. Rohtas ---- Respondent Ist Set. 5. Bijay Narain Singh, S/O Late Ram Naresh Singh 6. Keshari Paswan, s/O late Ram Roop Paswan, both resident of Village Borarhi Kala P.S. Janororh, P.S. Diara, Distt. Rohtas(Sasaram) ---------- Respondent 2nd Set. ---------- 2. 5.3.2009 Heard Mr. Brij Mohan Kumar Singh for the petitioners, and Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad Sinha, learned Government Pleader No.3. It arises out of mutation proceedings and is directed against the order dated 4.3.2007 (Annexure-4), passed by respondent no.2, in Revision Case No. 45 of 2003 (Kaushalya Devi & Ors. Vrs. Bijoy Narayan Singh & Ors.), whereby he has rejected the revision application preferred by the present petitioners under the provisions of the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Though respondent nos. 1 to 4 have placed on record their counter affidavit, copy whereof has been served on learned counsel for the petitioners during course of the submissions, we have, therefore not taken the same into account while disposing of the writ petition. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It relates to mutation of the following lands: 2 fooknh Hkwfe dk O;kSjk fuEu izdkj gS%& ekStk [kkrk [ksljk jdck cjk<h dyk 120 247 0-6¼ 247 0-26 249 0-15¼ ____________ dqy 0-47¼ The petitioners have filed an application under the provisions of the Act for mutation of the lands in question in their names. The same was allowed by the order dated 30.3.2000 (Annexure-2), passed by respondent no.4, in Mutation Case No. 972 of 1999-2000. Respondent nos. 5 and 6 preferred appeal which has been allowed by order dated 8.2.2003(Annexure-3), passed by respondent no.3 in Mutation Appeal No. 49 of 2002-2003(Bijoy Narayan Singh & Ors. Vrs. Kaushalya Devi & Ors.). Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners preferred revision application which has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the lands in question are pond and Chaur lands, are in the use of general public and are recorded as such in the survey Khatiyan. It is further stated therein that the petitioners obtained order of the learned first authority in their favour by obtaining misleading local inspection reports. The impugned order, therefore, can not be faulted. The writ petition is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. )