IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4943 of 2011 AMRIT RAJAK S/O LATE JODHAN RAJAK, PROP, ARUN DRY CLEANERS ROSERA, MOHALLA MAHABIR ASTHAN(LAXMIPUR)ROSERA P.S. ROSERA, DIST. SAMASTIPUR --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SAMASTIPUR 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, SAMASTIPUR 4. THE L.R.D.C. ROSERA, SAMASTIPUR 5. MAHANTH DEEP NARAYAN DAS, CHELA THAKUR DAS, KABIR MATH LAXMIPUR, BAGICHA ROSERA, P.S. ROSERA, P.O. ROSERA, DIST. SAMASTIPUR --- RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. Md. Shahnawaz Ali, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, S.C. 4. ----------- 02 16.03.2011 Heard both sides. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 04.01.2011(Annexure-2) passed by respondent Collector in Mutation Revision case no. 742 of 2005 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 10.05.2005 passed on appeal as contained in (Annexure-1) was upheld. Dispute pertains to a piece of land appertaining to thana no. 69, khesra no. 1383, admeasuring a total area of 14 dhurs. According to the writ petitioner, the aforesaid land was orally purchased by the father of the petitioner from father of respondent no.5, who was looking after Kabir Math Laxmipur Bagicha, Rosera in the Dist. of Samastipur in the year 1958 for a consideration of Rs. 85/- (Eighty five only). On an application preferred by the writ petitioner seeking mutation the same was allowed by order dated 17.04.2002. The petitioner has not 2 enclosed the copy of the said order passed by the Circle Officer, Rosera. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order respondent no.5 preferred appeal vide Mutation Appeal no. 19 of 2003. The said appeal was allowed by order dated 10.05.2005 (Annexure-1). Aggrieved over the said order writ petitioner preferred revision no. 742 of 2005 which has been considered and rejected by order dated 04.01.2011 (Annexure-2) which has been impugned in the present application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per provision contained in Transfer of Property Act oral sale is permissible where the consideration amount is less than 100/- (One hundred). He, however, is able to satisfy this Court with reference to the order of the Circle Officer dated 17.04.2002, that notice was issued to respondent no.5 and/or to the Religious Trust Board. Revisional Court has assigned diverse reasons for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. One of them being that admittedly the land in question belonged to Kabir Math which was under the administrative control of Religious Trust Board who has not been made party. Respondent Collector has also taken into consideration that although, according to the writ petitioner, the land was orally purchased in 1958 itself but for about 45 years no step was taken to get his name mutated in respect of the land in question. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned order. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner 3 and the State, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any procedural or jurisdictional error in the order impugned. Mutation neither creates title nor extinguishes it. In that view of the matter, petitioner may approach appropriate Court of competent jurisdiction for ventilation of his grievance(s). If the petitioner chooses to file any suit then in that event the findings on title, if any, recorded in the order impugned (Annexure-2) shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner. Sym/ ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)