Harihar Roy vs The State of Bihar and Others

Kishore Kr. Mandal, J.—Heard. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.7.2012 passed by the respondent Collector (Annexure-1) affirming the order dated 15.3.2012 (Annexure-2) passed by the appellate authority in Mutation Appeal No. 30 of 2010-11. Let it be recorded that the appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 19.6.2010 (Annexure-3) passed by the respondent Circle Officer in Mutation Case No. 260/1 of 2010-11. The appellate authority in the impugned order has observed as under:--

The said finding of the appellate authority has been affirmed by the respondent Collector under the impugned order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made diverse submissions to assail the correctness of the order passed by the respondent Circle Officer. It has been contended that the same is anchored on a report which is ante-dated She, however, admits that as found by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, a suit is pending in relation to the subject land between the parties in the Court below. Learned counsel further submits that in the impugned orders, the Revenue authorities ha(sic) corded certain finding touching the title of the parties over the subject land which may cause prejudice to the petitioner. On perusal of the materials on record, it appears that a suit between the parties filed by the petitioner is pending in the Court vide Title Suit No. 249 of 2010.

This Court, in that view of the matter, without interfering with the order(s) impugned in this writ application, would observe that mutation of the name of the parties in relation to the subject land shall abide by the decision to be taken in the pending Title Suit. Any finding touching the title of the parties over the subject land, in that event/shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner. The application stands disposed of.