IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18798 of 2010 1. Anuradha Mehta @ Anuradha Mundkur W/O Sri Valmik Mundkur R/O Mehta Compound Jail Road, P.S.- Town, Distt.- Muzaffarpur Resident At 36/201, Heritage City, M.G. Road, Gurgaon, Haryana Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (East), Muzaffarpur 3. The Circle Officer, Musahari, Muzaffarpur 4. Prasanjit Mehta S/O Late Pashupati Nath Mehta R/O Mohalla- Chandwara Jail Road, P.S.- Town, Distt.- Muzaffarpur ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s Tejpal Singh Kang,Sandeep Kumar, Ajit Kumar and Mukesh. For the respondents: Mr.Shailendra Kumar. 3 28.6.2011 The petitioner states that she is the only child of late Ravindra Nath Mehta, who was the resident of Mohalla Chandwara Jail Road in the town and district of Muzaffarpur. He had possessed some land. Upon death of her father, she inherited all the properties being the sole heir. She having been married and was away Delhi and when she returned, she found that the lands were mutated in the name of respondent no.4, who happens to be her uncle . Upon enquiry, it was found that her uncle had moved the Circle Officer, Musahari, Muzaffarpur and upon wrong documents, got his name mutated in respect of the land in question in Mutation Case no. 910 of 2002-03 by order dated 30.6.2002 itself. These proceedings were without notice to the petitioner, who, as stated above, was living in Delhi. Upon coming to know of this , she filed Mutation Appeal before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, (East), Muzaffarpur being Mutation Appeal no. 2 101/2008-09, which the learned D.C.L.R. (East),Muzaffaropur allowed by order dated 15.2.2010 and remitted the matter to the Circle Officer, Musahari, Muzaffarpur, for fresh consideration after notice to all the parties. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that once D.C.L.R. set aside the order dated 30.6.2002, as passed by the Circle Officer, mutating his name, by addition of respondent no.4, the result would be that since the matter is finally decided by the Circle Officer where proceedings were pending, the petitioner has to be granted rent receipts. I can see no legal objection to the aforesaid. Respondent no.4 has appeared . Having heard the parties, in my view, the order dated 30.6.2002 of the Circle Officer granting mutation in favour of respondent no.4 having been set aside by the appellate authority it would be deemed non existent. If that be so, then rent receipts have to be granted in favour of the person, whose name is recorded, who may be the father of the petitioner. If his name be so recorded the Circle Officer or his office cannot deny rent receipt in the name of recorded tenant merely on the ground that the application for mutation is pending. In that view of the mater, I direct the Circle Officer to grant rent receipts, as questioned by the petitioner, which would, of course, be only an evidence of payment of rent and discharge of liability in respect thereof. The mutation matter must now be decided by the Circle Officer expeditiously after 3 due notice to the petitioner and after hearing the parties preferably, within a period of three months, subject to petitioner and other side co-operating. With the aforesaid observations and directions the writ petition is disposed of. Singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)