IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22736 of 2011 1. Lakhan Lal Jaiswal son of late Ayodhya Bhagat, permanent resident of village-Bhikhna, P.S. Rupauli, Dist-Purnea, at present residing at Rupauli, P.S. Rupauli, Dist. Purnea. ---Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector, Purnea. 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Dhamdaha, Dist. Purnea. 4. The Circle Officer, Rupauli Circle, District-Purnea. 5. Bindeshwari Prasad Bhagat @ Bindeshwari Prasad Jaiswal son of late Ayodhya Bhagat, permanent resident of village- Bhikhna, P.S. Rupauli, Dist-Purnea, at present residing at Birauli, P.O. Ajhokopa, P.S. Rupauli, Dist. Purnea. 6. Jitendra Prasad Jaiswal Ayodhya Bhagat, permanent resident of village-Bhikhna, P.S. Rupauli, Dist. Purnea at present residing at Rupauli, P.O. & P.S. Rupauli, Dist. Purnea. ---Respondents. ---------------------------------- 02 21.12.2011 Heard Mr. Gyanand Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Counsel to AAG-15 for the State. Petitioner raises a grievance with respect to order dated 18.04.2009 passed by the respondent Collector, Purnea in Mutation Revision no. 98 of 2004 ( Bindeshwari Jaiswal vs. Lakhan Lal Jaiswal & Ors.). By the said order, the revisional authority disposed of the revision application preferred by respondent no.5 in the following manner:- “The case is remanded to D.C.L.R., Dhamdaha to issue notice to all parties and to conduct a local inspection to establish possession. Thereafter, DCLR, Dhamdaha shall pass an order as per provisions of Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act.” Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the view taken in the order is contrary to the provisions contained in the Bihar Tenants‟ Holding ( Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 ( for 2 short „Act‟) as they do not contemplate in mandatory terms a local inspection of the subject land personally. It is contended that while passing the order dated 29.11.2002 (Annexure-5), the Circle Officer had obtained a report in this regard from the Halka Karmchari through the Circle Inspector. It is also contended that till date the respondent-DCLR has not carried out the directions contained in order dated 18.04.2009 propelling the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned order. It is contended that possession is essential to an order of mutation in favour of a tenant. It is also contended that by order impugned the matter has only been remitted back to the respondent- DCLR to carry out local inspection and pass order in accordance with law. I have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. By the order impugned, the Collector remanded back the matter to the respondent – DCLR to make local inspection and pass order in accordance with law. Since vide the impugned order the parties are to be noticed and an inspection to verify the possession of the parties over the subject land is only to be ascertained, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 18.04.2009 (Annexure-1). Learned counsel next argued that till date the said order has not been carried out by the respondent-DCLR. The petitioner has been waiting for disposal of the proceeding in terms of the order dated 18.04.2009 but the respondent-DCLR has not acted in this 3 regard till date. The grievance of the petitioner seems to be justified. If an order has been passed by the superior revenue authority, the revenue authority subordinate to him is required to comply with the order/direction made by his superior revenue authority. If the submission of the petitioner is correct then this Court is unable to find any justification in not carrying out the direction contained in order dated 18.04.2009 (Annexure-1). This Court is, thus, satisfied that the present application be disposed of by the following order:- Let the respondent- DCLR, Dhamdaha (respondent no.3) comply with the order dated 18.04.2009 passed in M.R. case no. 98 of 2004 (Annexure-1), if not already carried out, within 04 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of the order before him. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)