IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.20882 of 2010 1. HARINARAIN SINGH 2. KAMATA SINGH 3. TEJ NARAIN SINGH ALL SONS OF LATE KALICHARAN SINGH 4. FULCHANO KUER W/O LATE SARDA SINGH 5. DWARIKA SINGH SON OF HARINARAIN SINGH 6. LAL MOHAR SINGH 7. SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH 8. NAND KUMAR SINGH 6 TO 8 ARE LATE PURNAWASI SINGH ALL R/O VILL. KHUTAHA MATHIA, P.S. SANJHAULI DIST. ROHTAS (SASARAM) --- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, ROHTAS, SASARAM 3. L.R.D.C. BIKRAMGANJ ROHTAS 4. CIRCLE OFFICER, SANJHAULI, DIST. ROHTAS --- RESPONDENT IST SET. 5. DINANATH SINGH S/O FAUDAR SINGH 6. RAJENDRA SINGH SON OF RAMASHISH SINGH 7. RAMASHISH SINGH 8. BHIKHARI SINGH BOTH SON OF LATE KESHWAR SINGH 9. RANA SINGH 10. BINOD SINGH 11. MANOJ SINGH 9 TO 11 ARE THE SONS OF LATE PARAS SINGH ALL R/O VILL-DARSHAN TOLA, P.S. SANJHAULI, DIST. ROHTAS --- RESPONDENT 2ND SET ----------- 02 06.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Petitioners are the purcha holders.They are aggrieved by the revisional order dated 03.11.2009, passed in revision case no. 73 of 2008 whereby the order dated 31.08.2007 passed by respondent Anchal Adhikari in mutation case no. 166 of 2007- 008 has been restored after setting aside the appellate order passed by respondent D.C.L.R. Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the 2 order submits that the private respondents herein are the purchaser of land from the land holders. The land holders and the respondents herein being the purchaser of parts of the disputed land moved the respondent Board of Revenue against an order whereby the lands in question were declared surplus. It is admitted position that the Board of Revenue allowed the said claim of the respondents herein being the bonafide purchasers of the land in question. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the purcha holders along with the writ petitioners preferred writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 1721 of 2000. It appears that by order dated 22.2.2001, notices were directed to be issued on the private respondents and status quo was granted. It is further admitted position that the said writ stood dismissed for non compliance with the Court’s order sometimes in the year 2002. It is also admitted that on an application preferred by the writ petitioners herein the aforesaid writ petition has been restored to its original file by order dated 18.2.2010. In the meanwhile respondents moved the respondent Circle Officer for mutation of their names in the revenue records which was allowed. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners preferred appeal being land mutation appeal no. 80/2007-08 (Harinarain Singh Vs. Dinanath Singh). The said appeal was allowed. Aggrieved thereby private respondents herein preferred the aforesaid revision application which has been allowed by order dated 3.11.2009 (Annexure-3) which has been impugned in the present application. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the 3 order submits that the respondents are the purchasers of the land from the land holder(s). It is next contended that during the pendency the writ petition bearing C.W.J.C.No. 1721 of 2000 the authorities were not justified in allowing mutation of their names respecting the lands in question which is the subject matter of C.W.J.C. no. 1721 of 2000. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the aforesaid proceeding was taken when aforesaid writ petition was not alive. It is next contended that the writ petitioners themselves filed appeal against the aforesaid order and as such they cannot justifiably raise the aforesaid issue in the present proceeding. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. Mutation of names neither creates nor extinguishes title. It appears from the pleadings on record that the initial order was passed by the authority when aforesaid C.W.J.C. No. 1721 of 2000 was not alive. It further appears that petitioners themselves preferred appeal thereby accepting the jurisdiction of the Circle Officer to pass orders on the application preferred by the private respondents herein. Learned respondent Additional Collector has assigned adequate reasons based on appraisal of documents produced by the parties for allowing the revision application. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 03.11.2009. However, having regard to the fact that a writ petition respecting the land in question is now pending ( after restoration) before this Court, I am inclined to 4 observe that the order impugned shall be subject to the final result of C.W.J.C.No. 1721 of 2000 which is said to be pending in this Court. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)