IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.3370 OF 2004 YADUVIR SHARAN LAL, SON OF LATE SANT SHARAN LAL, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA DARBAR CHOWK, HISUA, POST OFFICE AND POLICE STATION HISUA, DISTRICT NAWADA …………………………………………PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE –CUM- COLLECTOR, NAWADA 3. THE NAWADA NAGAR PARISHAD THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NAWADA 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NAWADA NAGAR PARISHAD 5. PYARE LAL BURNWAL, SON OF LATE RAMESHWAR LAL, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA STATION ROAD, NAWADA, POST OFFICE AND POLICE STATION NAWADA, DISTRICT NAWADA ………………………………………………………………………RESPONDENTS ********** 3 24/09/2010 Sant Sharan Lal on the basis of the judgment and decree passed in Title (Partition) Suit No. 104 of 1970 came into the possession of 6½ decimals of land with respect to holding no. 92 (new) and 64/1 (old). Sant Sharan Lal paid taxes first to the notified Area Committee and thereafter to the Municipality. It is said that the land was rented out to respondent no. 5. Respondent no. 5 after becoming the Ward Member got his name entered in the municipal records and paid rent from 1979 to 1983 in one instalment on 17.06.1982. After the death of Sant Sharan Lal, his two sons, namely, Raghuvir Sharan and Yaduvir Sharan Lal inherited the property to the extent of their share. The petitioner Yaduvir Sharan Lal transferred his share in favour of his daughter-in-law Manju Devi. After 2 transferring his share in favour of his daughter-in-law, he filed Mutation Case No. 20 of 2001-02 in which respondent no. 5 appeared and contested the case and finally, the case was decided in favour of the petitioner on 14.08.2002. Respondent no. 5 after lapse of several years filed another mutation case which was finally disposed of on 17.02.2003 in favour of the petitioner. It would be worthwhile to mention that Eviction Suit No. 140 of 2000 has been filed in the Court of the Munsif, Nawada by the petitioner for eviction of respondent no. 5. Apparently, the Munsif had already decided the suit. The order is not annexed in the writ application but it appears that the appeal was filed against the judgment and order of the Munsif, Nawada in which notices have been issued. The respondent no. 5 has again filed a mutation case for recording his name. Respondent no. 3 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that respondent no. 5 after the judgment and decree of the suit has prayed for mutating his name in the said holding. In this case, as there is a dispute with respect to the possession of the parties, the petitioner’s claims is that he has title over the lands whereas the respondent no. 5 has also made a claim of title. Obviously, any order passed in the mutation proceedings would be subject to 3 the result of the final decision in the suit. The findings of the mutation case specially in this case where there are several orders one contradicting the other, is hardly binding for the purpose of holding that one or the other party has title over the disputed land. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )