IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13600 of 2002 Sujeet Kumar adopted son of late Nand Kumar Prasad, Original son of Sri Rajendra Prasad Gupta, resident of Mohalla- Nawada, Arrah, P.S. Arrah Nawada, District- Bhojpur (Arrah) Versus 1. Commissioner Of Arrah Municipality, Arrah, District- Bhojpur 2. Chairman, Arrah Municipality, Arrah, District-Bhojpur 3. Special Officer, Arrah Municipality, District- Bhojpur, Arrah 4. Kaushlendra Kumar son of Sri Ramesh Chandra Pankaj, resident of Mohalla- Nawada, P.S. Arrah, Nawada, District- Bhojpur (Arrah). ------ For the petitioner: Mr. Jitendra Pd. Singh, Advocate For Resp. No.4 : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate. ------ 6. 16.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the private respondent no.4. No one appears for Arrah Municipality although notices were validly served upon it. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.10.2002 passed by respondent no.3, the Special Officer, Arrah Municipality, Bhojpur, Arrah in Mutation Case No. 10/2002-03, by which he has allowed the prayer of respondent no. 4 for mutating his name in the Municipal records in place of the recorded owner, Rajeshwari Devi. The dispute in the present matter relates to a 2 house situated at Mohalla Nawada under Arrah Municipality on a land having an area of 16 dhurs, bearing holding No. 96, Plot No. 4776. The said house was recorded in the name of Rajeshwari Devi (since deceased) wife of late Nand Kumar Prasad. The said Rajeshwari Devi admittedly died on 24.10.2001. The petitioner claims to be the adopted son of Rajeshwari Devi and her husband, being the son of the brother of her husband, since late Rajeshwari Devi and her husband did not have any issues. The respondent no.4, on the other hand, is the son of the brother of late Rajeshwari Devi. Both claim to have come in peaceful possession over the house in question after the death of Rajeshwari Devi. The claim of the petitioner is based upon his being their adopted son and his further claim is that after her death he had paid the Municipal holding tax for which two receipts have also been produced. The claim of respondent no.4, Kaushlendra Kumar rests upon a deed of Will said to have been executed by late Rajeshwari Devi with respect to the disputed house. Both have challenged their mutual claims. The petitioner states that the said Will is forged and fabricated and has not been probated, whereas the respondent no. 4 states that the petitioner was never adopted 3 by late Rajeshwari Devi. The respondent no. 4 however, filed an application for mutation before the Municipal authorities which was registered as Mutation Case No. 10/2002-03. The petitioner filed his objection to the mutation. After making necessary inquiries and hearing both the parties, by the impugned order dated 18.10.2002 respondent no.3, the Special Officer, Arrah Municipality, on the basis of the report dated 17.5.2002 of the Tahsildar of Arrah Municipality, came to the conclusion that over the disputed house respondent no.4, Kaushlendra Kumar was in possession and therefore, he allowed the application for mutation of the respondent no.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent no.3 is contrary to law as the Will in question has not been probated and the same is clearly a forged and fabricated document. It is alleged that without the Will being probated, it is not open to the Special Officer, Arrah Municipality to have relied upon the same and directed mutation in favour of respondent no.4. Learned counsel for respondent no.4, on the other hand, submits that the order has not been passed only on the 4 basis of the said Will rather the main reason for passing the order is the fact that the respondent no. 4 was found in possession over the house in question. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, this Court does not find any illegality or factual infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Special Officer. The purpose of mutation in the Municipal record is essentially for the collection of the holding tax over the Municipal holding in question. Any order of mutation does not decide the right and title of the parties. Normally, in case of such dispute, the matter is essentially resolved on the basis of finding as to the actual possession of the concerned party. I find that the Special Officer has passed his order after receiving a report from the Tahsildar of the Arrah Municipality in favour of respondent no. 4 being in possession over the disputed holding. In the said circumstances, the impugned order cannot be held to be illegal or unjustified. In the said circumstances, the impugned order is not fit to be interfered with and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 5 It is however, made clear that the impugned order does not decide the right and title of the parties and it would be open to the parties to get the same decided in duly constituted proceedings before the appropriate forum. S. Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)