IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12270 of 2010 1. RAJENDRA SINGH S/O LATE MOSHAHEB SINGH R/O VILL.- DUMRI, P.S. FATEHPUR, DISTT.- GAYA --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, SADAR, GAYA 4. THE IN-CHARGE OFFICER DISTRICT REVENUE BRANCH, GAYA 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, FATEHPUR, GAYA 6. RAVI SHANKAR S/O LATE CHALITAR SINGH R/O VILL.- DUMRI, P.S. FATEHPUR, DISTT.- GAYA ---RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent No.6 : Mr. Prakash Srivastava, Advocate. ----------- 04 06.12.2010 Heard both parties. Present application, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed questioning the sustainability of the order dated 06.02.2010, passed in Mutation case no. 01 of 2007-08 (Annexure-1), whereby the respondent Circle Officer has directed for mutating the name of respondent no.6 (Ravi Shankar) in respect of the disputed land fully described in para 4 of the writ petition. It appears from the pleadings on record as well as submissions made on behalf of both the parties that the impugned order was passed in compliance with the order dated 08.11.2008, passed by Deputy Collector, Land Reform, Sadar, Gaya, in Mutation Appeal no. 48/07-08. Petitioner as well as the respondent no.6 admit 2 before this Court that the writ petitioner has already filed a revision application against the order dated 08.11.2008 (Annexure-2), which is pending consideration before the respondent no. 2, District Collector, Gaya. This is what the petitioner has stated in paragraph no.9:- “9. That it is stated that thereafter the son of the petitioner namely Sachida Nand Singh filed a revision case in the court of Collector, Gaya against the order of D.C.L.R. passed in Mutation appeal no. 48 of 2007-08 dated 08.11.2008 which is still pending. The District collectorate, Gaya has also informed the Circle Officer, Fatehpur by letter no. 1674 dated 16.02.2009 regarding the said fact.” Respondent no.6 has filed a counter affidavit which is on record. It appears therefrom that the aforesaid statement of the petitioner has not been controverted. In that view of the matter, as agreed between the parties, the present application is being disposed of by the following order: (i) The respondent no.2 shall consider and dispose of the revision application in accordance with law within a reasonable time preferably within a period of 05 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (ii) The impugned order dated 06.02.2010 (Annexure-1) shall abide by the final adjudication to be made 3 by the respondent Collector in the pending revision application filed by the writ petitioner. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)