IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.10448 of 2008 Smt. Kesra Devi, W/O Sri Sartej Tiwary, resident of village Bhagwanpur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, district Kaimur (Bhabhua) .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Circle Officer, Bhagwanur, Kaimur 3. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Bhabhua 4. Collector, Kaimur (Bhabhua) 5. Sanjay Tiwary 6. Kamta Tiwary 7. Shashikant Tiwary All sons of late Kanhaiya Tiwary 8. Paudhari Kuer, Widow of late Kanhaiya Tiwary 9. Mostt. Nainapati Kuer, widow of late Uma Shankar Tiwary, resident of village Bhagawanpur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, district Kaimuar (Bhabhua) 10. Smt. Umrawati Devi, D/O late Uma Shankar Tiwary, W/O Ghanshyam Tiwary, resident of village Akhlaspur, P.S. Bhabhua, district Kaimur at present residing at village Bhagwanpur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, district Kaimuar 11. Saro @ Sarswati Devi, W/O Birendra Mishra, resident of village Parhouti, P.S. Bhagwanpur, district Kaimiur (Bhabhua) .. Respondents With C.W.J.C. No.11263 of 2008 Smt. Kesra Devi, W/O Sri Sartej Tiwary, resident of village Bhagwanpur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, district Kaimur (Bhabhua) .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Circle Officer, Bhagwanur, Kaimur 3. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Bhabhua 4. Collector, Kaimur (Bhabhua) - 2 - 5. Chandraeo Tiwary, son of late Jay Nandan Tiwari, resident of village Manjhon, P.S. Bhagwanpur, district Kaimuar (Bhabhua) 6. Mostt. Nainapati Kuer, widow of late Uma Shankar Tiwary, resident of village Bhagawanpur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, district Kaimuar (Bhabhua) 7. Smt. Umrawati Devi, D/O late Uma Shankar Tiwary, W/O Ghanshyam Tiwary, resident of village Akhlaspur, P.S. Bhabhua, district Kaimur at present residing at village Bhagwanpur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, district Kaimuar 8. Saro @ Sarswati Devi, W/O Birendra Mishra, resident of village Parhouti, P.S. Bhagwanpur, district Kaimiur (Bhabhua) .. Respondents **** /2/ 04.05.2009 Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the writ petitions. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State. 3. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 13.11.2002, passed in Mutation Case No. 459 of 2002 by the Circle Officer and the order, dated 10.10.2003, passed in Mutation Appeal No. 24 of 2003 by the Deputy Director, Land Reforms, and also the order, dated 30.07.2007, passed in Mutation Revision No. 35 of 2003-2004. All the three Courts have passed orders refusing to consider the case of the petitioner regarding mutation of her name with respect to the disputed property, i.e., lands of plot no. 6, khata no. 19, measuring 1.25 acres - 3 - situated in village Jagdishpur. Petitioner is claiming on the basis of a registered will executed in her favour by Uma Shankar Tiwary. Case was filed for probating the will and on that basis Title Suit No.4 of 2000 is pending. Respondents 5, 6, 7 and 8 are the purchasers in whose favour Most. Nainapati Devi (respondent no. 9) widow of late Uma Shankar Tiwary has executed sale deed. Respondent no. 10, Smt. Umrawati Devi, is the daughter of Bageshwari Tiwari, first wife of late Uma Shankar Tiwary and respondent no. 11, Saro @ Sarswari Devi, is the daughter of Most. Nainapati Devi, second wife of late Uma Shankar Tiwary. Counsel for the petitioner submits that with respect to the disputed property three matters are pending before the Civil Court. First is the Title Suit No. 47 of 1997 (dismissed for default), which has been filed by Most. Nainapati Devi, challenging the will executed in favour of the petitioner. Title Suit No. 152 of 1997 filed by respondent no. 9 challenging the earlier partition vide Partition Suit No. 95 of 1992 and third is the Title Suit regarding the probate of will. In view of the fact that matter relating to title and possession of disputed property is being - 4 - contested by the parties and pending before Civil Court, the revenue authorities should not have passed any order of mutation without deciding the possession of the parties over the suit property, specially in favour of the purchasers (respondents 5 to 8). 4. Considering the fact that with respect to the disputed property title is being contested by the parties in different suits, it is not desirable that any finding should be recorded. However, the present orders passed by the revenue authorities relating to mutation of the disputed property will be subject to the final judgment/decree/order passed in different suits pending before the competent Civil Court. 5. With these observations and directions, this application is disposed off. Cp:2/S.A. ( Mridula Mishra, J.)