IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5616 of 2009 Satya Narayan Singh son of Late Nago Koiri @ Nageshwar Koiri, resident of village Sahasa, P.S. Belan, Kaimur at Bhabhua …Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Additional Collector, Kaimur at Bhabhua 3. The Deputy Collector of Land Reforms, Kaimur at Bhabhua 4. The Circle Officer, Rampur Kaimur at Bhabhua 5. Narayan Singh 6. Shalik Singh both sons of Ram Kishun Koiri 7. Balkeshwar Singh son of Late Raj Nath Singh 8. Gaurishankar Singh 9. Haridwar Singh both are sons of Shalik Singh 10. Surendra Singh 11. Birendra Singh 12. Rabindra Singh all sons of Late Ram Awadhesh Singh, resident of village Khanethi P.S. Sanha, Kaimur …Respondents --- For the petitioner : Mr.Narendra Kumar, : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh & : Mr. Tej Narain Singh For the State : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan A.C. to G.P.12 For private respondents: Mr. Abhay Kumar & : Mr. Ramchandra singh ---------------------------------- 04. 22.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, private respondents and the State. Petitioner raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 11.08.2008 passed by the Respondent-Addl. Collector at Bhabhua in Mutation Revision Case No. 08 of 2007-2008/102 of 2008-2009 as contained in Annexure-3. He also questions the sustainability of the order dated 02.02.2006 passed by the Circle Officer, Rampur, Kaimur in Mutation Case No. 237 of 2005-2006 (Annexure-1). The petitioner 2 succeeded at the appellate stage. There is no dispute that the aforesaid proceedings were levied under the provisions contained in Bihar Tenants Holdings(Maintenance of Records)Act,1973. Writ petitioner is the son of Late Nago Koiri @ Nageshwari Koiri, whereas respondents are the descendants of Sarabjit Koeri. There is no dispute that Sarabjit Koeri and the grand father of the writ petitioner namely Haricharan Koeri were full brothers. There is also no dispute that land in question was alienated by way of a sale deed by the father of the writ petitioner. Both parties are in agreement that for setting aside the aforesaid sale deed the writ petitioner has already preferred a title suit bearing Title Suit No.326/04 which stood dismissed for non-prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs the Court that an application seeking restoration of the aforesaid suit to its original file and number has been filed and is currently pending. While assailing the order learned counsel contended that the order was passed by the Circle Officer on an application preferred by a person who was dead. It is next contended that the revisional order (Annexure-3) has been passed by the Addl. Collector who had no jurisdiction to exercise revisional power in terms of the Act. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the private respondents. 3 Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits with reference to the averments made in counter affidavit that application seeking mutation was filed by Jaga Koeri when he was alive. The same was not docketed and, as such, at the instance of his descendants, the same was located and a proceeding was initiated which was pursued by the successor-in-interest of Jaga Koeri whereafter the order was passed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal. It is thus contended that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that a dead person had filed the application. Learned counsel further contended that a Division Bench of this Court in 2011 (4) BLJ 125 (Amrendra Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) has recently held that the Addl. Collector shall have jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the revision application under the relevant provision of the Act. Considering the ratio laid in Amrendra Kumar Singh (supra) the contention of the petitioner that the Addl. Collector had no jurisdiction is not sustainable in law. The said contention is rejected. It appears that a duly constituted suit was filed by the petitioner for setting aside the sale deed executed by his father in favour of the descendants of Sarabjit Koeri . The said suit was dismissed. Now an application seeking restoration has been filed. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order(s) impugned in the present 4 writ petition since the mutation of name of any tenant in respect of the land neither creates nor extinguishes title. A suit having been filed will decide the title and interest of the party relating to the land in question. This Court, therefore, while declining interference would observe that order(s) impugned shall be subject to the result of the suit said to be filed by the writ petitioner wherein an application for restoration thereof is pending at the instance of the petitioner. This disposes of the writ petition. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )