IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2006 of 2002 BABAN SINGH son of Late Kashi Nath Singh, resident of village- Damdiha, P.S.- Dawath, District- Rohtas Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, ROHTAS AT SASARAM 3. THE D.C.L.R., BIKRAMGANJ, DISTRICT- ROHTAS 4. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, DAWATH, DISTRICT- ROHTAS 5. JAGDISH SINGH 6. JOMDHARI SINGH 7. SHEO SHANKAR SINGH ALL SONS OF LATE DEORAJ SINGH 8. MATHURA SINGH 9. LAL BIHARI SINGH 10.DADAN SINGH 11.KAPIL MUNI SINGH ALL SONS OF LATE GARJAN SINGH, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DAMDIHA, P.S. DAWATH, DISTRICT- ROHTAS. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Senior Advocate Mr. Sudama Singh, Advocate Mr. Rajani Kant Singh, Advocate For the respondents 5 to 11 : Mr. R.K.Singh, Advocate Mr. Vidya Nand For the State : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, J.C. to S.C.V **** 5 27.01.2009 Heard learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, respondent nos. 5 to 11 and for the State. A reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 5 to 11 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.05.2001 (Annexure-5) passed by the Collector of the District in Mutation Revision Case No. 41 of 2000 rejecting the revision application filed against the order 2 dated 17.07.2000 in Mutation Appeal No. 114 of 1999- 00 whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the order of the Anchaladhikari, as contained in Annexure-2, was upheld. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the authorities while considering the application for mutation in question have travelled beyond their jurisdiction in considering the question of title of the petitioner flowing from the registered deed of gift. It is further submitted that the application of the petitioner for mutation over the land in question was rejected primarily considering the question of title which they could not have done. While considering the revision application the revisional authority also committed error by going into details on the questions of title and also the question of competency of the donor to execute the deed of gift in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner did not derive any title over the land on which an application for mutation was filed since the donor had no subsisting title in respect of the land to execute the deed of gift, and as such, the authorities have correctly appreciated the claim of mutation as claimed by the petitioner. The learned counsel, however, is not 3 in position to refute the submission of the petitioner that the order passed by the consolidation authority granting permission to execute the aforesaid deed of gift has not been set aside as he has no knowledge of it. It is further submitted that the matter is really a disputed questions of title, and as such, the matter needs to be adjudicated in the Civil Court. It is further submitted that there is serious dispute with regard to the date of death of Ramraj Singh, who is said to have executed the deed of gift in favour of the petitioner since the petitioner claims that the said Ramraj Singh died in the year 1993, whereas according to the respondents he died in the year 1984 as stated in paragraph 4 of the reply affidavit. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that he has not been able to file any counter affidavit as yet. Considering the submissions of the parties and their respective pleadings, it appears that the claim for mutation of the petitioner as also the case of the respondents in its opposition is centered around the deed of gift through which the petitioner claims to have derived the title which was executed after obtaining the permission by the consolidation authority as per its orders contained in Annexures-1 & 1/1 and thereafter 4 he came in possession of the entire land covered under the deed of gift. The objection of the respondent was that the donor had no title to execute the deed of gift in favour of the petitioner, and as such, no title had passed in favour of the petitioner and consequently the petitioner did not have any possession over the land in question. The possession continued in favour of the respondents. It is not in dispute that the deed of gift was executed after obtaining the permission of the consolidation authority as per the order dated 22.07.1981 (Annexure-1) read with the order dated 11.06.1986 (Annexure-1/1) whereby the appellate authority while allowing the appeal directed for opening the chak and necessary corrections in respect of the land covered under the deed of gift. The above two orders remained in existence and have not been set aside the fact which is not disputed in absence of any material on record. On perusal of the order dated 27.05.2001 (Annexure-5) passed by the Collector against the order of the lower revenue authority it would appear that the Collector while considering the revision application has gone into consider the matter with regard to competency of the Ramraj Singh, who had executed the deed of gift in question in favour of the petitioner and in that connection the revisional 5 Court has further held that the contention of the petitioner that Ramraj Singh has no title is falsified. In other words, in order to give credence to the case of the respondents that Ramraj Singh could not had validly executed the deed of gift in view of the fact that he was having two daughters alive. It further appears that the revisional Court has held that only on the basis of the orders passed by the consolidation authority the mutation order can not be passed. In my opinion, the paramount consideration for considering the application for mutation ought to have been the possession over the land in question coupled with the prima facie title in support of such possession. The revisional Court ought to have considered the revision application in the light of above two established principles of law relevant for considering the question of Mutation. In this view of the matter, the order dated 27.05.2001 passed by the respondent no.2, as contained in Annexure-5 can not be sustained in law and the same is, accordingly, quashed. However, the matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2 for passing a reasoned order afresh in accordance with law after hearing both the parties and upon considering the materials available on record. The respondent no.2 shall dispose of the revision application preferably within a 6 period of six months on receipt/production of the certified copy of the present order. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with the above observations/directions. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)