IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7536 of 2010 MAHENDRA SINGH S/O LATE SAMPAT SINGH R/O VILL.- GOTHAR, P.S.- SHEOSAGAR, DISTT.- ROHTAS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, ROHTAS (SASARAM) 3. RAM CHANDER PASWAN S/O LATE SITA RAM PASWAN R/O VILL.- GOTHAR, P.S.- SHEOSAGAR (BADDI), P.O.- BARKHADIH, DISTT.- ROHTAS ----------- 02. 06.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is purchaser of the lands in question from Sri Rajeshwari Rai vide sale deed dated 14.2.2007, Annexure-1 and on the basis of the said sale deed he was put in possession of the lands in question. His request for mutation was refused by the Circle Officer, against which he filed Mutation Appeal No.85 of 2007-08 before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms which was allowed under order dated 9.5.2008, Annexure-4, against which private respondent no.3 preferred Mutation Revision Case No.49 of 2008-09 which was allowed under order dated 2.2.2010 and the order dated 9.5.2008 passed in favour of the petitioner was set aside. Private respondent no.3 is purchaser of the lands in question from Ram Janam Rai and Shiv Janam Rai, who are cosharers of Rajeshwari Rai but according to petitioner Ram Janam Rai and Shiv Janam Rai have sold lands much beyond their share. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that order dated 2.2.2010 passed by the Additional Collector, Rohtas in Revision Case No.49 of 2008-09 is wholly without jurisdiction as in terms of the provisions contained in Section-16 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973(hereinafter referred to as the Act) - 2 - the Collector of the district has jurisdiction to look into the correctness or otherwise of the order passed in mutation appeal. In terms of Section-16 of the Act it is the Collector of the district who has jurisdiction to consider the correctness or otherwise of the appellate order passed in mutation appeal but before such finding is recorded in the instant case, notice is required to be issued to respondent no.3 which likely to take sometime. In the circumstances, in order to save time a via media is found in view of the fact that petitioner is already in possession of the lands in question by virtue of his sale deed dated 14.2.2007 he is granted liberty to approach the competent civil court for declaration of his title over the lands in question and the findings recorded in the order dated 2.2.2010 shall be subject to the result of the title suit filed by the petitioner. During the pendency of the title suit if possession of the petitioner is disturbed by private respondent no.3 he is at liberty to request the civil court to grant injunction in his favour. 4. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)