IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8598 of 2007 Murlidhar Choubey, son of Bikrama Choubey, Resident of village- Manjhauli, P.O.- Bihiya, P.S. Bihiya, District- Bhojpur. ..... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Collector –cum- District- Magistrate, Bhojpur, at Ara. 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Jagdishpur, Bhojpur. 4. The Circle Officer, Bihiya, Bhojpur. 5. Bansidhar Chaubey, son of Bikrama Chaubey. 6. Uma Shankar Chaubey, son of Bkrama Chaubey. 7. Narayan Chaubey, son of Sukhram Chaubey. 8. Pram Kumar Chaubey. 9. Raj Kumar Chaubey. 10. Anandi Kumar Chaubey. All 8 to 10 sons of Radha Krishana Chaubey. 11. Nirmal Chaubey. 12. Rama Shankar Chaubey. 13. Sharda Nand Chaubey. All 11 to 13 sons of Shri Krishna Chaubey, All 5 to 13 resident of village- Manjhauli, P.S. and P.O.- Bihiya, District- Bhojpur. ...... Respondents. ----------- 02- 10.2.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Kumar Alok, learned Standing Counsel no.19 for respondent nos.1 to 4. We have not felt the necessity of issuing notices to respondent nos.5 to 13 in view of the nature of the order that I am going to pass. It arises out of mutation proceedings and is directed against the order dated 6.2.2007 (Annexure-3), passed by the learned Collector of the district of Bhojpur, 2 in M.R.-11/04 (Murlidhar Chaubey Vs. Banshidhar Chaubey), in purported exercise of powers under section-16 of the Bihar Tenants’ Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), whereby the revision application preferred by the present petitioner has been rejected and the appellate order has been upheld. 2. Respondent nos.1 to 4 have placed on record their counter affidavit. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The present petitioner has filed an application for mutation of the land in question, which was allowed by order dated 8.9.1995 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned Anchal Adhikari, Bihiya (Bhojpur), in Mutation Case No.485/95-96. Aggrieved by the order, respondent no.5 herein (Bansidhar Chaubey) preferred appeal under the Act after a lapse of nearly nine years. The same has been allowed by order dated 18.6.2004 (Annexure-2), passed by the learned L.R.D.C., Jagdishpur, Bhojpur, in Appeal Case No.20 of 2003-04 (Banshidhar Choubey Vs. Muralidhar Chaubey and others), whereby he has held that notice of the proceedings before 3 the learned Anchal Adhikari was not served on the appellant (respondent no.5 herein) and, therefore, he was not aware of the order of the learned Anchal Adhikari. He has also found that the appellant was in possession of the land in question. In that view of the matter, he has allowed the appeal, and has set aside the order of the learned Anchal Adhikari. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner herein preferred revision application which has been rejected and the appellate order has been upheld. He has been concurred with the findings of facts recorded by the learned appellate authority. In view of the clear findings of the learned revisional authority that respondent no.5 was not served with notice of the proceedings pending before the learned Anchal Adhikari, he was naturally unaware of the order passed on 8.9.1995 (Annexure-1.) The condonation of delay in filing the appeal was, therefore, just and proper order and in the interest of justice. 4. In so far as the merits of the matter are concerned, the appellate authority and the revisional authority have concurrently found that respondent no.5 is in possession of the 4 land in question. The impugned order cannot, therefore, be faulted. 5. The writ petition is dismissed. It goes without saying that it will be open to the aggrieved party to institute a civil suit before a court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of right, title and interest. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/