Ashutosh Kumar, J.—Heard Mr. J.S. Arora, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam, learned AAG-12 for the State.

2. The appellants are primarily aggrieved for the reason that the land which they have sold is not being registered and therefore their respective purchasers/vendees are insisting upon the appellants to get the sale-deed registered.

3. It appears from the records of both the writ petitions in which the two orders have been passed by two different Benches, which have been impugned in the present set of appeals, that the appellants had purchased the land in question from their vendor and had also got their names mutated in the revenue records. It further appears from the pleadings and the documents presented before the learned Single Judges in writ proceedings that because of certain wrong entries creeping in the revenue records, displaying the Government of Bihar as the owner of the land, the vendors of the appellants had preferred a title suit seeking correction in the revenue records. The suits were decreed but the decree was not being executed.

4. Hence, the writ petitions before the two learned Single Judges of this Court.

5. Before the writ court, it was urged by the State that title appeal against the aforesaid judgment in Title Suit at the instance of the State was pending final adjudication. It was under such circumstances that a decision had been taken at the Governmental level to direct all the registering authorities, not to register particular parcels of land for the reason of cloud over the proprietory rights over such land. The registering authority, in obedience to such administrative instructions, had refused to register the said lands.

6. Before the writ courts, it was further argued that there was a necessity of digitalizing the revenue records for convenience and till the time the digitalization process was over, it would be more convenient for the parties, especially the State not to register lands or else the digital records would not be correctly uploaded. It was for this reason that a direction was given to the registering authorities for not registering the lands in question, though the transfer of some other parcels of land in the same area were allowed to be registered.

7. The two orders which have been impugned in the present set of appeals are based on the premise that the parties would have fared better if they had approached the competent courts for execution of the decree in Civil Court which had permitted the correction of the revenue records and that against the order of the registering authority refusing to register the land on the asking of the appellants, there is a provision for appeal.

8. In one of the cases, it was urged before one of the learned Single Judges that the appeal lies before the Collector of a district, who, himself is part of the deliberation and decision in the administrative side that certain parcels of land including that which is a question in the present set of appeals ought not to be registered till the final digitization of the records and the disposal of the Title appeal preferred by the State, there is every likelihood of bias in preserving the afore-noted decision.

9. The learned Single Judge hearing the matter, found such apprehension of one of the appellants to be absolutely unfounded in law.

10. The fear of bias in the order of the appellate authority was found to be un-reasonable/unrealistic and not worthy of acceptance/reliance. It was held that if the aforenoted fear of bias is accepted, then perhaps no order passed by any quasi-judicial authority would ever be challenged before any authority as the appellate authority also forms part of the same genre of officers. Since the appellate authority, which in this case would be the Collector of the district, cannot be said to have any personal bias or interest in such appeals, such fears were rejected.

11. Thus, in sum and substance, both the writ petitions were rejected on the ground t