IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13248 of 2010 BABU RAM, S/o Late Nawalakh Ram, R/o Village- Angara, P.S.- Agiaon, District- Bhojpur(Bihar). Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Director, Consolidation, Budh Marg, Bihar, Patna- 800001. 2. The Principal, Consolidation Training Institute, Budh Marg, Patna- 800001. 3. The Deputy Director, Consolidation, Bhojpur at Ara, P.S.-Ara (Town), District- Bhojpur (Bihar). 4. The Circle Officer, Piro, P.S.-Piro, District- Bhojpur (Ara) (Bihar). 5. Nihora Ram, S/o Late Ayodhya Ram 6. Ram Kirti Mochi, S/o late Ayodhya Ram 7. Mahendra Das, S/o Late Budhu Ram. 8. Rabindra Das, S/o Late Budhu Ram 9. Ram Nagina Ram, S/o Late Jhaman Ram. Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 are residents of village-Angara, P.S.-Agiaon, District- Bhojpur(Bihar). Counsel for the petitioner : M/s. R. Sinha No. 2 G.N.Ojha, Advocates. Counsel for the State : Mr. Shashi Shankar, AC to SC-20. ----------- 2. 13-08-2010 The Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 11.08.2009 passed by Anchal Adhikari, Piro by which he is ordered that the names of the private respondents i.e. Late Ayodhya Ram, Late Budhu Ram, Late Raman Ram and Jhaman Ram should be mutated in the records of rights. The mutation application was filed on 11.08.2009 on behalf of the heirs of the aforesaid persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order has been issued on 11-08-2009 without following any of the procedure like issuance of public notice etc. The private respondents in this case are heirs of the aforesaid persons mentioned in the mutation application filed on 2 11.08.2009. It is submitted that it has wrongly been mentioned in the order dated 11-08-2009 that the private respondents or their predecessors in interest had got decree by a court in their favour viz-a-viz this petitioner. The petitioner’s case is that he had purchased the land in question from the ancestors of the land holder through a sale deed dated 24-07-1937 and their names were recorded in the revenue records of rights. The petitioner’s claim is that he has been paying rent. The order impugned is liable to be challenged by filing an appeal. I accordingly, direct that the petitioner should file an appeal, challenging order of the Anchal Adhikari, Piro on the grounds taken in the writ application and mentioned in this order as well as any other grounds that he wishes to take. Appeal should be filed along with a limitation application and since it is apparent from the order dated 11.08.2009, that order was passed behind the back of the petitioner, the appellate authority should condone the limitation, if any. The limitation application is also liable to be condoned on the ground that the petitioner had come to this court to pursue his legal remedies and as such certain time was utilized for this purpose as well. The appeal should be filed within a period of 08 weeks on receipt of a copy of this order. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Sujit (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)