The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to the statutory procedure for mutation applications under the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973.

Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 11.04.2002 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms in the Misc. Case No. 07/2001-2202 (Annexure-8) whereby he dismissed the application for mutation of original petitioner and affirmed the order dated 18.12.1999 passed by the Circle Officer in Misc. Case No. 23/2003 of 99-2000 (Annexure-4)

3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that an application for mutating the name of the writ petitioner was filed in respect of certain lands vide his application dated 7.09.1998, as contained in Annexure-1, Misc. Case No. 11/03 of 1999-2000. Since no order was passed over the said application, a petition in this connection was filed before the Collector, Nalanda which, in turn, was sent to the respondent No. -2, the Circle Officer, Chandi, for disposal. The said application was however, separately recorded as Misc. Case No. 23/03 of 1999-2000. It is further submitted that the respondent-Circle Officer disposed of the said Misc. Case No. 23/03 of 1999-2000 by order dated 19.11.1999 (Annexure-4) considering large number of documents including the order dated 28.03.1979 in an earlier Mutation Case No. - 385/3 of 1978-79 and also the orders passed on appeal and revision arising out of the said order whereas the petitioners were not even noticed of such hearing and the matter was heard and disposed of in his absence causing serious prejudice to the petitioner by depriving him to place his case and explaining the documents filed by the Opposite Party. The petitioners assailed the said order before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (Respondent No. 3) and his application was registered as Misc. Case No. 7/2001-2002. The same was also dismissed as per the order contained in annexure-8 ignoring the grievance of the petitioners that the Respondent No. 2 had passed order on merits without hearing the petitioners considering and accepting the documents filed by the Opposite Party without giving opportunity to the petitioners. In the circumstances, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order contained in Annexures 4 and 8 liable to be quashed and the respondent No. -2 deserves to be directed to pass the order afresh on Mutation Case No. 11/03/1999-2000 filed by the petitioners after heard both the parties and considering the respective documents.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that even though petitioners were not noticed or heard by the Circle Officer, the petitioner was duly heard on merits by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, assailing the order passed by the Circle Officer. Besides the above, the petitioners have statutory remedy of revision before the Collector of the District and the same having not been availed, the writ application is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.

5. Upon considering the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of their respective pleadings, it is not in dispute that the respondent No. -2, the Circle Officer, passed the order in favour of the respondents with regard to the mutation over the land in question without notice to petitioners and disposed of the matters on considering the documents filed by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition before the Deputy collector, Land Reforms, as contained in Annexure-7 and 7(i), and requesting to pass the order considering the documents.

6. In my opinion, the mutation application is required to be considered and disposed of as per the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Act"). Under Section 14 of the aforesaid Act at the first instance, the Anchal Adhikari shall issue general notice and also give notice to the parties concerned. The parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence and dispose of the objection