Letters Patent Appeal No.1274 OF 1999 ----- Against Judgment and order dated 22.9.1999 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C.No.6755 of 1991. ----- SURESH CHANDRA PRASAD SINHA & 0RS --------Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS --------Respondents ----- For the Appellants : M/s V.R.P. Singh and Madhukar Pandey,Adv. For the Respondents: Mr.Ashwani Kumar Rai,Adv. ----- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH Barin Ghosh & Jayanandan Singh,JJ: Appellants are some of the sons of the recorded tenant. It appears that respondent no.5 is said to have purchased the land in question from one of the sons of the recorded tenant. The application of respondent no.5 for mutation was allowed by the Circle Officer. On appeal, the D.C.L.R. set aside the order of the Circle Officer. A revision was then filed by respondent no.5 which was dealt with by the Additional Collector, who by the order impugned in the writ petition set aside the order of the D.C.L.R. On the ground that the Additional Collector is not the competent authority to consider the revision application, for the revisional power vests solely on the Collector, the writ petition was filed. By the order under appeal the writ petition has been - 2 - rejected on the ground that it is a question of title and the same should be sorted out by filing a suit and mutation does not determine the title on the land. 2. It is true that mutation does not affect title, the same authorizes the State to collect rent from the recorded tenant in whose favour mutation has been allowed. If the property is owned by many, sale thereof by one cannot confer title to the property in its entirety to the purchaser. 3. In the circumstances, this appeal is disposed of by declaring that the rent receipt filed by respondent no.5 on the basis of mutation allowed by the Circle Officer will not prejudice the title of the true owner of the property in question and this declaration is being given in view of the fact that respondent no.5 has already filed suit. Accordingly, it shall be at the risk of the respondent no.5 to deposit rent in terms of the order of the Circle Officer. 4. Appeal accordingly stands disposed of. (Barin Ghosh,J.) (Jayanandan Singh,J.) Patna High Court 26th June, 2008 N.A.F.R./Pradeep