IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15060 of 2010 TETARI DEVI @ PREM LATA DEVI W/O- SACHIDANAND SINGH RESIDENT OF MAINAPURA P.S. DANAPUR DISTRICT- PATNA . Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR PATNA. 3. THE COLLECTOR, PATNA. 4. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, PATNA 5. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, DANAPUR, PATNA. 6. THE CIRCLE OFFICER DANAPUR, PATNA. ----------- 4 02.12.2010 Petitioner assails the order dated 17.04.1990 passed in Mutation Appeal No. 47/89-90, (heard along with Mutation Appeal No. 47/89-90) passed by the respondent Deputy Collector, Land Reforms Danapur. By the impugned order, the lands in question have been found to be rightly mutated in the name of Sri Ambika Bhagat. Petitioners claim to be the purchaser of the land from one Chandeswar Paswan who was a co- sharer (brother) of Banwari Paswan. It is the contention of the petitioner that no appeal was preferred against the order passed by the Circle Officer in favour of the writ petitioner. It is stated that by the impugned order a clog has been created on the title of the petitioner. It is the settled law that mutation of land in the register II neither creates title nor extinguishes the same. If the petitioner is of the view 2 that the order is contrary to law and has the pregnability to interfere with his right, title and interest over the land in question he may file a suit. In the event, any such suit is filed by the petitioner, the findings/observations recorded in the impugned order shall not enure to the benefit of any party to the said suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that a suit has already been filed for declaration of right, title and interest. If that be so the petitioner may get himself impleaded in the said suit if permitted by law. With this observation the application is disposed of. Amrendra/ ( K.K. Mandal, J.)