IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19570 of 2010 DRAUPADI DEVI WIFE OF LATE DIGAMBAR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KURMICHAK, P.S. MOKAMA, DISTRICT- PATNA AT PRESENT- AMBIKA SADAN, MUHALLA- RAMDHANPUR, P.S.- KOTWALI, DISTRICT- GAYA. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.19641 of 2010 DRAUPADI DEVI WIFE OF LATE DIGAMBAR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KURMICHAK, P.S. MOKAMA, DISTRICT- PATNA AT PRESENT- AMBIKA SADAN, MUHALLA- RAMDHANPUR, P.S.- KOTWALI, DISTRICT- GAYA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE COLLECTOR, DISTRICT- PATNA. 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORM (D.C.L.R.) PATNA CITY, DISTRICT-PATNA. 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, ANCHAL OFFICE, PATNA SADAR, DISTRICT- PATNA. 6. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, PATNA SADAR, DISTRICT PATNA. 7. REVENUE KARMCHARI, HALKA NO. 4, ANCHAL OFFICE, PATNA SADAR, DISTRICT- PATNA. 8. SHYAMA SINHA, W/O- CHANDESHWARE PRASAD @ CHANDESHWAR SINGH, I.O.C. COLONY KUMHARAR, P.S.- AGAMKUAN, DISTRICT- PATNA. 9. SURESH MAHTO 10. SHYAM SUNDAR MAHTO 11. RAM SUNDAR MAHTO ALL 9 TO 11 ARE SONS OF LATE MAHENDRA MAHTO, VILLAGE- JAYPUR, DHANUKI, MUHALLA- KUMHRAR, P.S.- AGAMKUAN, DISTRICT- PATNA. 12. SUDHIR PRASAD, SON OF LATE RAM SLOK SINGH, MOHALLA- I.O.C. COLONY, KUMHRAR, P.S.- AGAMKUAN, DISTRICT- PATNA. ----------- 2 07.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2 The petitioner has filed the present writ petitions assailing the order dated 14. 08. 2010 passed by respondent Circle Officer, Patna, whereby the lands in question which is/are the subject matter of the two writ petitions have been directed to be mutated in the name of respondent no. 8. Issues and facts are identical and as such both the applications have been heard together with the consent of the parties, the present order shall govern them. Petitioner claims purchase of disputed land on 10.02.1973, by way of registered deed. It is also her case that the land(s) vended in her favour was mutated and Jamabandi (Jamabandi no. 379) was created in her claim vide case no. 206 of 81/82. It is the petitioner’s case that aforesaid Dwarik Mahto sold the disputed land in favour of one Ramsakhi Devi by way of registered sale deed on 09.09.1967. The writ petitioner purchased the disputed land on 10.2.1973, from Ramsakhi Devi. The sale deed is Annexure-2. After such purchase she approached the authority for mutation whereafter her name was mutated in respect of the disputed land and Jamabandi was created vide Jamabandi no. 379. It is stated that thereafter the writ petitioner is paying rent receipts regularly to the State of Bihar. It appears the grand-sons of Dwarik Mahto 3 also approached the respondent Circle Officer for entering their names in respect of the lands of Dwarik Mahto. In course of consideration of such matter it was found that the application filed on behalf of the respondents required correction in Jamabandi itself and as such the matter was referred to the respondent DCLR, by order dated 24.11.2009 passed in mutation case no. 824/4 of 2010. In spite of notice the writ petitioner did not appear whereafter matter was considered ex-parte The correction in Jamabandi was allowed whereby Jamabandi No. 379 created in the claim of the writ petitioner was directed to be cancelled and thereafter the lands were decided to be mutated in the name of grand- sons of Dwarik Mahto (respondent). Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached the respondent Collector vide revision case no. 26 of 2010. The respondent Collector by order dated 08.07.2010, passed in mutation revision no. 26 of 2010-11, admitted the same for hearing and called for the lower court records. It appears further from aforesaid order dated 08.07.2010 (Annexure-8), that the order of the court below was stayed. The order was duly communicated to the authorities below including the Circle Officer. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that during the pendency of the said matter before the respondent 4 Collector, the grand-sons of Dwarik Mahto (respondent nos. 9 to 11) alienated part of the disputed land in favour of the some other purchasers, who approached the Circle Officer for mutating their names, which gave rise to mutation case nos. 616/04 of 2010 and 617/4 of 2010 of the Court of respondent Circle Officer and the same have been allowed directing mutation in their favour. It is the submission of the petitioner that once the Revisional Court/Superior Court has stayed the order of the courts below, the respondent Circle Officer ought not have allowed the aforesaid mutation in favour of the subsequent transferees (respondent nos. 8 and 12) generating litigations. Learned counsel for the State submits that during the pendency of the aforesaid matter before the respondent Collector relating to the disputed land, the Circle Officer should not have allowed the mutation applications filed by the subsequent transferees. Having considered the submissions at the Bar, this court finds that there is already a substantive proceeding pending before the respondent Collector on the behest of the petitioner in which operation of the order passed by the court(s) below seen to have been stayed. If any mutation is made in favour of any person relating to the land in question including the impugned 5 mutation orders (Annexure-1) the same shall always be subject to the result of mutation revision case no. 26 of 2010 pending at the instance of the petitioner before the respondent Collector. In other words petitioner need not challenge the present mutation order during the pendency of the aforesaid revision application relating to the land in question. Applications are disposed of with aforesaid observations. Amrendra/ ( K.K. Mandal, J.)