IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13890 of 2008 SMT.ANNAPURNA DEVI, Daughter of late Akal Jha, resident of Mohalla- Rambag, Ward No. 14 (old), 11 (New), P.S. L.N.M.U. Campus, Anchal and Subdivision Sadar, District- Darbhanga Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Collector, Darbhanga 2. The Collector, Darbhanga 3. The Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga 4. Circle Officer, Sadar Anchal, Darbhanga 5. Deputy Collector, Incharge Land Reforms in short D.C.L.R. Sadar, Darbhanga ----------- 05/ 21.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is the purchaser of lands in Rambag Campus measuring 2 Kathas 13 dhurs and 22 dhurkies through sale deed dated 19.4.2005 executed by Sri Kapileshwar Singh on behalf of self and his elder brother, Sri Rajeshwar Singh, both sons of Late Rajkumar Shubheshwar Singh, who was the beneficiary in the Will executed by Late Maharaja Kameshwar Singh. Prayer for mutation was made on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed, the mutation proceeding, however, was stayed by the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga under order, bearing letter no. 198 dated 16.4.2005, as contained in Annexure-5 to this application, which has been impugned in this case on the ground that in mutation matters, learned Commissioner does not have any jurisdiction and he ought not to have stayed the mutation proceedings taken before the Circle Officer. In this connection, reference is made to the different provisions contained in Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of 2 Records) Act 1973, which inter alia, empower the Circle Officer to consider the request of the land holder for mutation after notice to all concerned and anybody, who is aggrieved by the order of the Circle Officer has the right to appeal before the D.C.L.R. and against the order of the D.C.L.R. revision lies before the Collector of the District. 3. In view of the scheme of the aforesaid fact, it is submitted that the Commissioner of the Division has no jurisdiction to interfere in the mutation matters. 4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. According to him, mutation matter pursuant to sale deed dated 19.4.2005 is required to be considered in the light of the family settlement arrived at between the heirs and legal representatives of Late Maharaja Kameshwar Singh before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3964-65 of 1983, as would appear from the order dated 15.10.1987 read with memorandum of settlement dated 17.5.1987, which, inter alia, provides that the lands of Rambag Campus could be transferred in favour of male descendents of Rajkumar Yugeshwara Singh and Rajkumar Subheshwara Singh. 5. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the State, I am of the view that aforesaid objection could be considered by the Circle Officer, provided such objection is taken by the male descendents of Rajkumar Yugeshwara Singh and Rajkumar Subheshwara Singh. The transfer having been 3 made by the male descendent of Rajkumar Subheshwara Singh, the Commissioner, in my opinion, was not empowered to interfere with the matter when the request for mutation was pending before the Circle Officer. 6. In view of my observations above, I am satisfied that the order passed by the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga, bearing letter No. 198 dated 16.4.2005, Annexure-5 is without jurisdiction and is, accordingly, set aside with direction to the Circle Officer concerned to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 7. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)