S. B. Sinha, J.

1. -in this application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 21-5-1978 passed by the respondent No.5 as contained in Anncxure-2 ; order dated 11-4-1981 passed by respondent No.3 and as contained in Annexure-4 as also the order dated 16-8-1983 passed by the respondent No.2 and as contained in Anncxure-5 to the writ application.

2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow campus. The petitioner is a purchaser of the land in question from respondent No.11 (Smt- Baba Dai ). The geneological table of the family of the petitioner is as follows :-

According to the petitioner, Khublal Sah and Bhola Sah were separate. The petitioner has stated that the respondent No.11 had sold the land in question by a registered sale deed dated 20-1-1976 and put in possession thereof. According to the petitioner, she sold O.46 decimels of land out of khesra No.1021 in favour of one Nathan Sah by a registered deed of sale dated 5-7-1976,

3 The petitioner, thereafter, through her husband filed an application for mutation before the respondent No.5. The said application was dismissed by the respondent No.4 by an order dated 21-5-1978 (Annexure-2)upon obtaining a report from the Karamchari. The Karamchari, inter alia, reported (Annexure-1) that the entire land belonging to the family measuring 7.73 acres had already been sold and lands in question had already been entered in Register II in the names of the said purchasers.

4. The petitioner preferred an appeal against such order dated 21-5-1978 passed by respondent No.4. It was allowed by an order dated 15-11-1978.

5. The respondent Nos.6 to 10 thereafter preferred a revision application before the respondent No.3 which by reason of the impunged order dated 14-4-1981 (Annexure-4) was allowed. The learned Add1. Collector, inter alia, held that several disputes in respect of the land in question have arisen for consideration, including the question of the title of vendor of the petitioner and, thus, the parties should file a suit in an appropriate Civil Court. A revision application was filed by the petitioner which was also dismissed by an order dated 16-8-1983 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application.

6. Sri A. B. Mathur, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has principally raised two contentions in support of this application. The learned Counsel has submitted that the respondent No.2 had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision application. The learned Counsel next contanded that respondent No.5, prior to passing of impugned order, did not follow the procedures laid down under the Bihar Mutation Manual, i. e. the circulars issued by the State of Bihar relating to mutation of the names of persons in Register II nor followed the procedure laid down under the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (Bihar Act 28 of 1975 ). The learned counsel, in this connection, has relied on the provision of Sec.14 (2)of the aforementioned Act and Rule 34 of the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Rules. My attention was further drawn to the instructions of the State of Bihar dated 12-7-1961.

7. It is not in dispute that the provisions of the aforementioned Act had been made applicable in the area in question, namely, Banmankhi by a notification bearing SO 683 dated 11-5-1978 with effect from 1-6-1978. The petitioner filed the application for mutation much prior to coming into force of the aforementioned Act. The procedure laid down under the aforementioned Act therefor could not be made applicable in the instant case, Particularly, in view of the fact that even the impugned order as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application was also passed by the respondent No.5 on 21-5-1978, i. e. prior to coming into force of the said Act.

8. Mr. Mathur has, however, drawn my attention to the following instructions issued by the State of Bihar :-

"5. Mutation arising out of transfer by g