JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Kumar, J.

Heard Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rajni Kant Jha, learned counsel for Private Respondent No. 6.

2. The appellant had purchased a land vide sale-deed dated 08.12.2014 from one Late Ram Chandra Das, of whom, the Private Respondent No. 6 claims to be his disciple. A mutation case was filed by the appellant vide Mutation Case No. 995 of 2014-15 for recording his name in the record of rights on the basis of sale-deed. The aforesaid request was rejected by the Circle Officer by order dated 16.04.2015 on the ground that the possession and the sale-deed appeared to be doubtful. This was challenged by the appellant before the DCLR vide Mutation Appeal No. 14 of 2015-16 on the ground that it was absolutely unjustified for the Circle Officer to have doubted the correctness of the sale-deed as he was not authorized to do the same. The mutation appeal was allowed and the order of the Circle Officer was set aside. This led to filing of revision by Private Respondent No. 6 before the Additional Collector vide Mutation Revision Case No. 30 of 2016-17 which was allowed by the order of the DCLR in favour of the appellant was set aside. The matter thereafter was taken to the Tribunal vide BLT Case No. 718 of 2018 where the case of the appellant was allowed and the order passed by the Additional Collector in Mutation Revision No. 30 of 2016-17, referred to above, was set aside whereas the order of the DCLR passed in Mutation Appeal No. 14 of 2015-16 was allowed.

3. The learned Single Judge while scrutinizing all the above orders, especially the order passed by the Tribunal, found that it was flawed for the reason that no definitive finding was given by either of the authorities with respect to possession of the appellant for him to qualify for getting his land mutated in the record of rights.

4. The learned Single Judge while referring to the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 inferred that Sub-clause 13 provides for a situation when the request for mutation could be rejected and that would be in the event of an acquirer of an interest in the holding or part thereof would not be found to have physical possession over that holding or a part thereof.

5. The learned Single Judge thereafter found that the Circle Officer had based his decision on the report of the Revenue Authority that the appellant was not in possession of the land. However, with respect to that part of the order of the Circle Officer which adverted to the issue with respect to the correctness of the title or genuineness of the sale-deed, was rightly found by the learned Single Judge to be inappropriate and incorrect in position of law and therefore held that the Tribunal was absolutely justified to that extent in not endorsing the order of the Circle Officer.

6. However, the learned Single Judge, while finding that none of the authorities which had passed an order in favour of the appellant, had adverted to the issue of possession which was also one of the grounds for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for mutation before the Circle Officer and therefore found that even the Tribunal committed a mistake in leaving that issue open-ended and not adverting to the same in a definitive way, which alone would have entitled the appellant to have succeeded in getting his name mutated in the record of rights.

7. Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that though the matter has been remanded to the Circle Officer to decide the issue afresh in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 5 and 6 of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011, but by such remand, the entire issue has been re-opened which could not have been done in view of the sale-deed in his favour which has not been questioned in any forum whatsoever. He further submits that such an open-ended remand in fact would open up the entire issue which the revenue authorities would not have the where with