S.B. Mnha, J:

In this writ petition the petitioners Challenge the orders as contained in Annexures-12 and 13 to the writ petition passed by the respondent nos. 3 and 2 respectively.

2. The aforementioned respondents by the said orders held that rent receipts should be issued in respect of the lands in question in the names of respondent nos. 4 to 7 and directed that the rent which was being accepted from the petitioners be not so done.

3. Mr. Debi Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has raised three questions. He firstly submitted that from the application tiled on behalf of respondents as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition it would appear that the same was filed before the land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar Daltonganj He therefore submitted that L.R.D.C., Daltonganj had no jurisdiction to initiate the aforementioned proceeding at all.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State ha3 drawn my attention to the statements made in the said annexure itself where in it has been stated that the said respondents approached the Circle Officer but the Circle Officer directed that the respondents to file the application in question before the L.R.D.C In this view of the matter the first contention of Mr Debi Prasad has no merit.

5. Mr. Debi Prasad then submitted that the Appellate Court in its order has merely relied upon the report of the Karamchari and the Inspector. He further has drawn my attention to the fact that from a perusal of the order dt.6.4.77 as contained in Annexure 12 to the writ petition it would appear that the private respondents did not file any document to prove their title, whereas the two sets of objectors who appeared before the respondent no. 3 tiled various documents which have been mentioned in the said order itself.

6. From a perusal of the impugned order it appears that the respondent nos 2 and 3 have rightly decided the case of the respective parties on the basis of the possession. It is not disputed nor can it be in law, that an order with regard to mutation has to be passed on the basis of possession only inasmuch as the authorities concerned cannot decide in such a case a disputed and complicated question of title. The findings of fact by aforementioned respondents having been arrived after taking into consideration all relevant fact and as such I am not in a position to interfere therewith.

7 It has not been suggested that the said findings ate based on no evidence, nor has it been suggested that the said orders are vitiated in law as the same are based on irrelevant matters or on extraneous consideration It has also not been suggested that the orders suffer from the vice of a total non-application of mind or are otherewise malafide. Reference in this connection may be made to the recent Full Bench decisions reported in Mahanth Dhansukh Giri-Versus- The State of Bihar1 and Mandori Labour Co-operative Societies Ltd -Vs The State of Bihar 2

8. Mr. Debi Prasad submitted that the report of the Karamchari and the Circle Inspector could not have been relied upon without examining them as witnesses.

9. In my view the Officers passing the orders on mutation matter do not exercise any judicial or quasi judicial function. They arrive at a decision of possession on the basis of the evidence placed before them including the reports of the officers concerned. Respondent nos. 2 and 3, in my opinion, cannot be said to be a Court within the meaning of section 3 of the Evidence Act, and as such it was not necessary for them to follow the procedure laid down under the Evidence Act, for the purpose of proving any docuwei1t or otherwise.

10. Mr. Prasad thereafter submitted that the lands were previously mutated in the name of the petitioners and a jamabandi was opened in their names. He therefore submitted that if the respondents or their predecessors in office or any other persons ware adversely affected by such orders, it was obligatory on their part to prefer an appeal w