IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10318 of 2011 Jagannath Prasad Singh s/o late Nand Prasad Singh, resident of Subhasnagar (Bibiganj), Road no.3, P.S. Sadar Town, District- Muzaffarpur. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Collector, Muzaffarpur, At & P.O.- Muzaffarpur. 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Muzaffarpur East, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Circle Officer, Mushahri, Muzaffarpur. 5. Sadan Kishore Singh s/o late Baijnath Singh, resident of village- Rampur Khurd P.S. Sahebganj, District- Muzaffarpur. ----------- 2 1.7.2011 The petitioner claims that he along with his elder brother Baijnath Praad Singh were , inter alia, title holders to certain lands in village Rampura ,Anchal Mushari, District- Muzaffarpur for which Jamabandi No.117/10 was there. The total area was about 4 Kahas. It appears that pursuant to a Panchnama, the petitioner got a new Zamabandi created being Zamabandi No. 45/25 in respect of 3 Kathas of the said land on the plea that pursuant to partition Baijnath Singh was allotted 1 katha and the petitioner was allotted 3 kathas of land. Accordingly, new Zamabandi created in respect of 3 kathas of land. The petitioner claims to have been paying the rent. His grievance is that all of a sudden rent receipt was refused to be granted and when he sought for a copy of Zamabandi he was told that all papers are missing. He came to this Court and this Court in the earlier proceeding directed the Circle Officer to make enquiry in the matter and reconstruct the Zamabandi. When this was not being done, he filed contempt application. 2 During the pendency of the contempt application, his Zamabandi has been cancelled. The petitioner challenges this action. Having perused the impugned order it clearly discloses that Zamabandi having been bifurcated, no entry of bifurcation was made in the original Zamabandi. The result was that in respect of 4 kathas of land , there were two Zamabandi existing, one for 4 kathas in the joint name of two brothers and another for 3 kathas in the solitary name of the petitioner. Thereafter it appears that son of late Baidyanath Singh, who is respondent no.5 here sold, by registered sale deed, 2 kathas of land. In the original zamabandi this was duly entered but its effect is given to the 2nd newly created zamabandi in favour of the petitioner. This could not be done. Respondent no.5 claims that Panchnama on basis of which the petitioner got new zamabandi created was a forged and fabricated document only to hurt of his father and him . It is under on this dispute that the authorities have cancelled Zamabandi no. 45/25 in the name of the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in my view, this is clearly dispute of title. Mutation authorities are not the appropriate forum to decide the dispute. Mutation records are only records of revenue and person liable to pay the same. It does not confer or recognize any right, title or interest in the property. That can only be decided by Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. I, therefore, grant liberty to the petitioner to raise all these issues in a title partition suit as already filed by the 3 petitioner being Title Suit No. 521 of 2007 pending in the Court of Sub judge-I Muzaffarpur, who would after due notice to the parties, in accordance with law, decide the issue. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)