IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C.No. 9800 of 2007 Jetendra Prasad Yadav, Son of late Kusum Lal Yadav Resident of Village- Rampur, P.S. Muffasil, District Katihar --------- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Commissioner Land Reforms Department Government of Bihar,Patna. 2. The Collector, District- Katihar 3. The Dy. Collector of Land Reforms District Katihar 4. The Circle Officer, katihar, District-Katihar. 5. Ram Prasad Yadav Son of Late Munsi Yadav Resident of Village- Rampur, P.S. Muffasil, District- Katihar ------ Respondents. -------- 2. 12.2.2009 Heard Mr. Md. Helal Ahmad for the petitioner, and Mr. Amit, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel No.19 for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.5 (Tumo Devi) is dead. In that view of the matter, as prayed for, he is permitted to delete respondent no.5 who is represented by respondent no.6 (Ram Prasad Yadav, her husband). This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.5.2007 (Annexure-2), passed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Katihar, in Ref. Case No. M.A. No. 50 of 2006-07(Jitendra Prasad Yadav Vrs. Ram Prasad Yadav), whereby he has dismissed the appeal preferred by the present petitioner under the provisions of the Bihar Tenant’s Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and has upheld the order dated 15.2.1993 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned Anchal Adhikari, Katihar, in Mutation Case no. 50 of 2006-07. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 have placed on record their counter affidavit. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It arises out of 2 mutation proceedings under the provisions of the Act and is with respect to the following lands: ektkS@okMZ ua0 Fkkuk ua0 [kkrk ua0 [ksljk jdok jkeiqj 75 48@ 624 591 594 595 0-33 1@4 575 0-12 1@2 562 0-10 1@2 564 0-01 && 609 0-49 1@2 657 0-11 && 658 0-19 1@4 0-57 1@4 g0 vLi’V vapy inkf/kdkjh dfVgkj Respondent no.5 herein (Tumo Devi ) filed an application under the provisions of the Act for mutation of the aforesaid lands in her name. The learned Anchal Adhikari passed order on 22.1.1993 for publication of general notice inviting objections to the same till 6.2.1993. No objection was received leading to the order dated 15.2.1993, whereby the aforesaid lands were directed to be mutated in favour of respondent no.5 (Tumo Devi). Soon thereafter respondent no.5 died. The petitioner herein preferred appeal impleading respondent no.6 herein as opposite party there. On a consideration of the materials, the appeal has been rejected and the order of the learned first authority has been upheld, mainly on the ground that late Tumo Devi is purchaser by means of a registered deed of absolute sale from the co-sharer of Kailu Yadav, the recorded tenant. The petitioner’s case is to the effect that he is the grand-son of the said Kailu yadav the recorded tenant, and has a superior claim for mutation. It appears to me that the learned authorities have concurrently found that the claim of Tumo Devi is superior because she claims title on the strength of a 3 registered deed of absolute sale. I must consider the objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Anchal Adhikari by his order dated 22.1.1993 (Annexure-1), had passed the order for publication of general notice inviting objections on or before 6.2.1993. He finally disposed of the mutation application by order dated 15.2.1993 (Annexure-1). In his submission, the approach of the learned Anchal Adhikari suffers from two errors, and is in violation of the provisions of section 14 of the Act. The same reads as follows: “14. Requisition and disposal of Mutation Cases.- (1) On receipt of notice under sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or an application under sections 11 and 12 or a report under section 13, the Anchal Adhikari shall start a mutation proceeding and after entering it in the mutation case register which shall be maintained in the prescribed from, shall caused such enquiry to be made as may be deemed necessary. (2) The Anchal Adhikari shall issue a general notice and also give notice to the parties concerned to file objection, if any, within fifteen days of the issue of the notice. On receipt of objection, if any, the Anchal Adhikari shall give reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to adduce evidence, if any, and of being heard and dispose of the objection and pass such orders as may be deemed necessary, 3. In cases in which no objections are received the Anchal Adhikari shall dispose them of within one month of the date of expiry of filing objection and in cases in which objections are received, the Anchal Adhikari shall dispose them of in not more than three months from the date of expiry of the period of filing objections.” Notice to the parties concerned inviting objections were not issued, and the learned Anchal Adhikari had to wait for a minimum period of four weeks from the date of publication of notice or service of notice, so that he could thereafter pass a final order. As to the first 4 part of the submission, Tuna Devi has not impleaded the present petitioner as an opposite party in her application. Therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Anchal Adhikari to issue notice to the present petitioner. In any case, he had published general notice in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act which in the facts and circumstances of the present case appears to be adequate compliance of the provisions of the Act. In so far as the second part of the submission is concerned, the learned Anchal Adhikari had fixed 6.2.1993 as the last date for submission of the objection. In other words, subject to exceptional circumstances, objection could have been extended up to 6.2.1993. The learned Anchal Adhikari disposed of the mutation application about 10 days after last date of the objection. The impugned order can not be faulted on the ground of non-compliance of the provisions of section 14 of the Act. I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. )