IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.541 of 2009 1. SOMARIA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE TIMBAL CHOUDHARY 2. NARESH CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE TIMBAL CHOUDHARY, BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE – RAMPUR, P.S. LAUKARIA, DISTRICT – WEST CHAMPARAN ……. PETITIONERS …. APPELLANTS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. CIRCLE OFFICER, BAGAHA-2, WEST CHAMPARAN, 3. THE ADDL. COLLECTOR (REVENUE), WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH, 4. PARAS CHOUDHARY, SON OF BINDHYACHAL CHOUDHARY, R/O VILLAGE – RAMPUR, BAGAHA NO. 2, P.S. LOKARIA, DIST. WEST CHAMPARAN 4(a) MANARCHI DEVI DAUGHTER OF BINDHYACHAL CHOUDHARY, R/O VILLAGE – RAMPUR, BAGAHA NO. 2, P.S. LOKARIA, DIST. WEST CHAMPARAN 4(b) JANKI DEVI DAUGHTER OF BINDHYACHAL CHOUDHARY, R/O VILLAGE – RAMPUR, BAGAHA NO. 2, P.S. LOKARIA, DIST. WEST CHAMPARAN 5. DINA NATH SAHNI SON OF BHOLA CHOUDHARY, R/O VILLAGE-GORIA PATTI, P.S. BAGAHA, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN 6. RAM JATAN MALLAH, SON OF LATE PURAN MALLAH R/O VILLAGE-TIKULIA, P.S. LOKARIA, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN…………RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the appellants: Mr. Wasi Ahmad Khan, Advocate. For the State: Mr. A.Karim @ Anwar,JC to SC V. For the other respondents: Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad No. 1. ---------- 6. 08.04.2010. Re. I.A. No. 2696 of 2009. This is an application for condonation of delay of 4 years and 23 days in preferring the appeal. We have heard Mr. Wasi Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants. 2 Before adverting to the factum of condonation of delay, we think it would be apt to address ourselves on the merits of the case. The facts which are evincible are that one Bindhayachal Choudhary, vendor of the 6th respondent, filed an application under the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 before the Anchal Adhikari, Bagaha, who by the order dated 28.11.1990 directed the land in question to be mutated in his favour. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the present appellant preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner Land Reforms, Bagaha, who allowed the appeal. The interference in the appeal by the appellate authority led the vendor to file a revision and the revisional authority by the order dated 12.06.2000 allowed the revision and set aside the order that had been passed by the first appellate authority. Being grieved by the aforesaid order, the present appellant preferred writ petition being CWJC No. 10821 of 2000. On the date the aforesaid writ petition was called 3 on for hearing, the writ petitioner was not present. The learned single Judge scanned the facts and came to hold that the purchasers are in possession of the land in question, therefore, the order cannot be found fault with. After so holding, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition but granted liberty to the writ petitioners to institute civil suit in a court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of right, title and interest on the land in question. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, we are of the considered opinion that entry in mutation records or making correction in the mutation records does not create or extinguish any kind of right, title and interest. What has been submitted before us by the learned counsel for the appellants that the entry that has been made in the mutation records is founded on the sale deed which is void. Many a ground has been urged to show that the sale deed is void. In view of the aforesaid assertions we are inclined to think the observations made by the learned single Judge that it would be open to the petitioners to file a civil suit to establish their right, title and interest cannot 4 be really found fault with. It is needless to say, what grounds would be urged in the civil suit are left open to the appellants herein to be urged. In view of the aforesaid, we do not perceive any merit in this appeal and, hence, there is no justification to condone the delay in preferring the appeal. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed in limine. Dilip ( Dipak Misra, C.J. ) ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. )