IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4806 of 2007 1. Lagandeo mahto, son of late Jamadar Mahto. 2. Bali Ram Mahto, son of late Jamadar Mahto. 3. Angad Mahto, son of late Jamadar Mahto. 4. Dudhnath Mahto, son of late Jamadar Mahto. 5. Silochani Kuwar, wife of late Jamadar Mahto. 6. Krishna Devi, daughter of late Jamadar Mahto. 7. Chinta Devi, daughter of late Jamadar Mahto. 8. Anita Devi, daughter of late Jamadar Mahto. 9. Prabhawati Devi, daughter of late Jamadar Mahto. ..... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra. 3. The Collector, Saran at Chapra. 4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Marhaurah, Saran. 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Marhaurah, Saran. 6. The Anchaladhikari, Marhaurah, Saran. 7. The Circle Inspector, Marhaurah, Saran. 8. Janardan Prasad. 9. Wakil Prasad. 10. Chandra Shekhar Prasad. 11. Lal Babu Prasad. All 8 to 11 are sons of late Ajab Narayan Singh. 12. Mostt. Sumani Kunwar, wife of late Ajab Nr. Singh. 13. Sitwanti Devi, D/o late Ajab Nr. Singh. All (8 to 13) are resident of Village- Kolhua, P.O.- Karanpura, P.S.- Marhaurah, District- Saran. ....... Respondents. ----------- 03- 23.1.2009 Heard Mr. Madhaw Prasad Yadav for the petitioners, and Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, learned junior counsel to Government Advocate 2 No.5 for respondent nos.1 to 7. We have not felt the necessity of issuing notices to respondent nos.8 to 13 in view of the nature of the order we are going to pass. It arises out of mutation proceedings and is directed against the order dated 17.2.2006 (Annexure-7), passed by the learned Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra, in Mutation Revision No.106 of 1995-96 (Janardan Prasad vs. Jamadar Mahto), whereby the revision application of respondent no.8 herein has been allowed, and it has been directed that the lands in question may be mutated in his favour. It is with respect to mutation of Khesra No.319, appertaining to Khata No.167, measuring an area of 5 kathas, 8 dhurs situate at Village- Kolhua, P.S. Marhourah, District- Saran. 2. It appears on a perusal of the materials on record that respondent no.8 herein had preferred revision application before the learned Commissioner for setting aside the order of the learned appellate authority, whereby the land in question was directed to be mutated in favour of Jamadar Mahto, who died during the pendency of the present proceedings and his heirs are now petitioners. The learned 3 Commissioner set aside the order of the learned appellate authority on the ground that the right, title and interest of the land in question has been adjudicated in favour of respondent no.8 in a civil suit and has, therefore, set aside the order of the appellate authority and directed that the land in question may be mutated in favour of respondent no.8. The learned Commissioner has further observed in his order that the order in the title suit shall remain effective till it is changed and reversed by any superior court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners raises a grievance before this Court that the learned Commissioner has ceased to be the revisional authority ever since March, 1983. In his submission, therefore, the impugned order having been passed by the learned Commissioner, is wholly without jurisdiction and fit to be set aside. 4. On a perusal of the materials on record, I am convinced that the learned Commissioner has passed a correct order on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the second appeal in this Court is pending against the judgment of the learned 4 trial court. The impugned order cannot, therefore, be faulted on merits. 5. It is yet to be examined whether or not the impugned order is fit to be set aside on the ground that the learned Commissioner has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Swalleh and others Vs. Third Addl. District Judge, Meerut and another, reported in (1988)1 S.C.C. 40. That arose out of proceedings under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The learned first authority disposed of the matter on merits. The aggrieved party had moved the learned District Judge, which was disposed of on merits. The aggrieved party moved the Allahabad High Court and raised the issue that there is no provision of appeal under the Act, and the District Judge is no authority at all thereunder. The Allahabad High Court agreed with this part of the submission but observed that the order of the learned District Judge was correct on merits and, therefore, the High Court in exercise of its discretionary, prerogative writ jurisdiction adopted the order of the learned 5 District Judge as its own order. The matter reached the Supreme Court and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court was affirmed on the same ground. I had the occasion to apply the ratio of the judgment in the case of Sri Prakash Singh and another Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 2002 (1) P.L.J.R. 650. In view of the position that I find the impugned order of the learned Commissioner to be correct on merits, I am not inclined to set aside the same on the ground that the learned Commissioner has had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. As stated hereinabove, the parties are locked in a second appeal which is still pending in this Court. 6. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/