IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4981 of 2007 1. KOMAL SINGH SON OF LATE RAM NANDAN SINGH 2. SUDAMA SINGH 3. BIKRAMA SINGH BOTH SONS OF LATE SETNATH SINGH, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE & P.O. BADDI, P.S.SHEOSAGAR, DISTRICT ROHTAS --- --- --- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, ROHTAS, DISTRICT ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 3. THE D.C.L.R., ROHTAS, DISTRICT ROHTAS AT SASARAM 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, SHEOSAGAR, DISTRICT ROHTAS AT SASARAM 5. GAURI SHANKAR SINGH SON OF LATE RAM SINGHASAN SINGH 6. CHANDRAMA SINGH 7. GOPAL SINGH BOTH SONS OF LATE RAM BACHAN SINGH 8. MOST. BACHCHI KUER WIFE OF LATE SURESH SINGH 9. BASANT SINGH 10. RAMANUJ SINGH BOTH SONS OF LATE SURESH SINGH 11. MANNA SINGH SON OF LATE RAM ANANT SINGH 12. SUDARSHAN SINGH 13. SURENDRA SINGH 14. MAHENDRA SINGH SONS OF LATE JANG BAHADUR SINGH, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE & P.O. BADDI, P.S. SHEOSAGAR, DISTRICT ROHTAS AT SASARAM --- --- --- RESPONDENTS ----------- 3. 23.1.2009 Heard Mr. Ravi Shankar Dwivedi for the petitioners, and Mr. Ansuman Singh for respondent nos. 1 to 4. It arises out of mutation proceedings and is directed against the orders dated 8.1.2007 2 (annexure-3), passed by learned Collector of the district Rohtas, Sasaram, in Mutation Revision case no. 9/05 (Komal Singh and ors. vs Gauri Shankar Singh and ors.), whereby he has rejected the revision application preferred in terms of section 16 of Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as ~the Act’), and has upheld the orders passed by learned two authorities below him with respect to the mutation case. The petitioners claim mutation with respect to various plots of C.S.khata no. 105, equivalent to R.S. khata no. 197, covering an area of 4.26 acres. The plot numbers are mentioned in the order of learned Anchal Adhikari (Annexure-1). Petitioners filed an application under the Act for mutation of the lands mentioned in detail in the orders of the learned first authority. The petitioners’ appeal was rejected by the appellate order dated 31.12.2004 (annexure-2), passed in Mutation Appeal no. 76/04-05. The revision application of the petitioners has been rejected by the impugned order. It appears that the parties are agnates. All the three authorities have found against the petitioners. It raises issues relating to right, title, and interest 3 which can be adjudicated only in civil suit of competent jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed. (S.K.Katriar,J.) AI