IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.654 of 2007 SHAILESH TIWARY, S/o Sri Brij Bihari Tiwary, R/o Village – Simri (Ramopatti), P.O. & P.S. Simri, Distt. Buxar…………………………………………... Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. The District Magistrate, Buxar, 3. D.C.L.R., Dumraon, Buxar, 4. Circle Officer, Simri, Buxar and 5. Brij Bihari Pandey, S/o Late Kalika Pandey, R/o Village – Simri, Ramopatti, P.O. & P.S. – Simri, Distt. Buxar ……………………….……. Respondents. ----------- 2. 12.01.2009. Heard Mr. Shree Kant Pandey, for the petitioner and Mr. Binod Kumar, learned Jr. Counsel to Standing Counsel I. This writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to set aside the order dated 24.9.06 / 10.3.06 (Annexure-3), passed by the learned Collector of the District of Buxar in Case No. 66/2003 (Shailesh Tiwari Vs. Brij Bihari Pandey), passed in purported exercise of powers under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, (hereafter referred to as `the Act’). Respondents No. 2 has placed on record his counter affidavit. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It relates to Khesra No. 1466, appertaining to Khata No. 430, covering an area of 76 ¼ decimals of land situate at Mauza Simri, District Buxar. The petitioner claims to have acquired title with respect to the land in question by a registered sale deed dated 5.4.2000 from Tetri Devi (W/o Ram Deo Dubey), a maintenance holder. He filed an application for mutation of the same in his name, which was allowed by order - 2 - dated 23.5.2000 (Annexure 1). Respondent No. 5 claims to be a purchaser of the land in question, apart from other lands belonging to the family. Respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal, which was allowed by order dated 8.5.2003 (Annexure 2), passed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dumraon, in Mutation Appeal No. 1/2003- 04. The petitioner’s revision application under Section 16 of the Act has been rejected by the impugned order. It appears to me that the issue involves disputed question of title including that of the vendors of the petitioner as well as Respondent No. 5. In fact, some of the adversely affected parties have already instituted Title Suit No. 83/1996, which is currently pending in the court of learned Sub Judge I, Buxar. A true copy of the plaint is marked as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. It, therefore, goes without saying that it will be open to the petitioner to pursue his claim regarding title of the land in question either in the pending suit, or by instituting a fresh suit in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. dk ( S.K. Katriar, J. )