IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15767 of 2011 1. Meera Devi wife of Sri Subhash Mahto, daughter of Mohan Mahto, 2. Meena Devi wife of Nagina Mahto, Both resident of village Majharia P.O., Padraun, Police Station, Gaunaha, District West- Champaran…. …..Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Collector, Bettiah., 1(A) The Additional Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah, 2. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Narkatiganj, Bettiah, 3. The Circle Officer, Gaunaha, Narkatiganj, Bettiah, 4. Upendra Kumar son of Heera Mahto, 5. Mohan Mahto son of late Sukhari Mahto, Both resident of village Majharia, Post Office Padraun, Police Station Gaunaha, District, West Champaran. ….Respondents …….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Shyam Sunder Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. S.S. Shabhar Hussain, G.P. 4, Mr. R.K. Sinha, A.C. to G.P. 4 …………. 2 20.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed by the authorities in favour of the private- respondents for mutation of the land in question during the pendency of Title Suit No. 112/2007 on 2 the basis of a deed conveyance allegedly having been executed in their favour by one of the co-parcenars of the family. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that even though there was an interim order restraining the parties from disposing of the property during the pendency of the suit the land had been transferred. However, it has been noticed by the mutation authorities that such interim order was passed in the suit after execution of the sale deed. From the statement made in paragraph no. 14 of this application it appears that the transfer was made even before filing of the title suit concerned. But the fact remains that the impugned order has been passed during the pendency of the concerned title suit. By now, it is well settled that the order passed by the authorities for mutation of the land is only of administrative in nature and the same entitles the party concerned only to deposit rent. In no way it affects the right, title and interest of the parties by either extinguishing or creating the same in favour of any person. In view of the position that the 3 concerned transferer was before filing of the title suit and original order of mutation has been passed during the pendency of Title Suit No. 112 of 2007 wherein the transferer and the transferees have already appeared as submitted by the learned counsel, the impugned orders would be subject to the result of the concerned title suit. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, no interference in the order impugned is required at this stage. Accordingly, this writ application stands dismissed. Sanjay-II (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)