The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following statutory provisions and due process in mutation proceedings, and the clarification that mutation proceedings do not decide the title and are not the evidence of exclusion from the property.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 28.8.2006 passed by the Collector, Buxar (Respondent No. 2) in Mutation Revision No. 148 of 2004/324 of 2006 (Annexure-1.)

3. The short facts of this case are that the land in question in the instant case, namely, Khata No. 275, Plot Nos. 681, 597/1368 and 597/1366 having total area of 0.67 acres situated in villageParasia admittedly belonged to Most. Kawali Kuer. By a registered deed dated 15.7.1986, Most. Kawali Kuer gifted 1.63 1/2 acres of land, which she had received from her Naihar and also the lands purchased by her deceased husband, in favour of Respondent No. 5, Ramakant Chaubey. Admittedly, the said deed of gift specifically mentioned khata number and plot numbers and also individual area of the gifted lands, which came to a total area of 1.63 1/2 Acres. The said deed of gift admittedly did not contain the three plot numbers involved in the instant case.

4. Subsequently, it is the case of Respondent No. 5 that the said Kawali Kuer swore an affidavit before the Notary stating that she had gifted these plots also but due to mistake of the Deed Writer the same have not been mentioned in the deed of gift whereas she had gifted those lands also to Respondent No. 5. In the year 2001, Respondent No. 5 filed an application for mutation of his name and the same was allowed in Civil Dakhil Kharij Case No. 522 of 2000-01 by holding a Camp Court. The reason assigned was that the lands have been transferred to Respondent No. 5 on the basis of deed of gift dated 15.7.1986 and on enquiry from the persons present, it was found that Respondent No. 5 was in possession over the same and no person expressed any objection to the mutation. Accordingly, the mutation was allowed, including that of the aforesaid three plots of land which were not in the deed of gift. By registered sale deed dated 23.7.2002, the aforesaid three plots of land were sold by the said Most. Kawali Kuer to the petitioner and the petitioner claims to have come in possession over the same after payment of consideration money. In November, 2003 the petitioner filed an application before the Anchal Adhikari for mutation of the disputed land in his name on the basis of the said registered sale deed vide Mutation Case No. 1419 of 2003-04. The Circle Officer and the Revenue Karamchari reported that there was dispute pending between the parties and on the basis of the said report, the application was dismissed by the Circle Officer by order dated 9.1.2004 on the ground that the disputed land has already been mutated in the name of Respondent No. 5 vide Mutation Case No. 952 of 2001 by the order dated 10.1.2001. Against the said order, the petitioner filed Mutation Appeal No. 25 of 2004-05 before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Buxar in which he challenged the validity of the order of the Circle Officer, Buxar dated 10.1.2001 passed in Mutation Case No. 952 of 2001 as well as the subsequent order dated 9.1.2004. On notice Respondent No. 5 appeared and filed his rejoinder. By order dated 30.11.2004 the D.C.L.R. allowed the appeal holding that Respondent No. 5 had not filed any proof in support of his claims and a direction was issued to the Circle Officer to mutate the name of the petitioner and issue rent receipts in his favour. Against the said order dated 30.11.2004, Respondent No. 5 filed Mutation Revision No. 148/ .4/324/06 before the District Collector, Buxar. In the said revision petition the claim of the respondent was based on the affidavit sworn on 31.12.1986 by Most. Kawali Kuer. On the basis of the same it was claimed that the mutation had rightly been granted earlier. The Collector, Buxar by his order dated 28.8.2006 allowed the revision application holding that the respondent was in possession over the land in question, which is clear from the Mutation Case No. 952 of 2000-01, by which his name has been mutated, as also from the other documents, land posses