The central legal point established in the judgment is the violation of mandatory provisions under the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 and the jurisdictional error committed by the revisional authority in deciding the title over the disputed property.

1. Aggrieved by order dated 28.09.2013 passed in Mutation Revision No.99R15/2012-13, the petitioners have approached this Court.

2. One interlocutory application being I.A. No.6340 of 2016 has been filed by petitioner nos. 1 to 8 and another interlocutory application being I.A. No.6289 of 2016 has been filed by petitioner nos. 15, 16 and 17, for withdrawing the writ-petition. Mr. Bijay Jalan, the learned counsel for the applicants/petitioner nos. 1 to 8 and Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, the learned counsel for the applicants/petitioner nos. 15, 16 and 17 state that these applicants have instituted Title Suit No.525/2016 challenging the Sale Deed dated 05.12.2011 executed in favour of respondent no.5 namely, Mohan Singh and for declaration of their right, title and interest over 4.50 acres land comprised in Khata no.130 within Thana no.297 at Mauza-Oberia, Ranchi and for this reason they are withdrawing their challenge thrown to order dated 28.09.2013. This prayer is not opposed by the counsel for the respondents.

3. I.A. No.6340 of 2016 and I.A. No.6289 of 2016 stand allowed.

4. Mr. Ayush Aditya, the learned counsel for petitioner nos.9 to 14 submits that without issuing notice, to the person in whose name the Jamabandi was running or to his legal heirs and successors, the Circle Officer ordered mutation in respect of 4.50 acres land comprised in Plot nos.617, 640, 713 in Khata no.130 within Thana no.297 in the name of respondent no.5, which is in gross violation of the mandatory provisions under the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. Referring to the findings recorded by the revisional authority, the learned counsel contends that a finding on title of the parties has been returned by the revisional authority on mere ipse-dixit. It is contended that the revenue authorities are not expected to adjudicate the complicated questions of fact particularly, dispute of title.

5. Per contra, Mr. Rupesh Singh, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5 contends that after the mutation order dated 30.12.2011 was passed, the land in question was transferred to different persons who were not made parties before the appellate authority or in the present proceeding and on this ground alone the writ-petition is liable to be dismissed. It is contended that on the basis of the report of Halka karamchari and the materials brought on record, the revisional authority has recorded a finding that the land sold in auction-sale was not exclusively purchased from the fund provided by Ram Pratap Ram Nayak rather, others had also contributed and that is the reason name of Harkhu Ram Nayak and Gopi Ram Nayak are duly reflected in Register-II and while so, the revisional authority has rightly recorded a finding that the land in question was jointly acquired by Ram Pratap Ram Nayak, Harkhu Ram Nayak and Gopi Ram Nayak.

6. Pursuant to order dated 01.09.2015 record of Mutation Case No.3152-R-27/2011-12 has been received in the Court. I have perused the proceeding in the said mutation case.

7. Out of 14.01 acres land comprised in Khewat No.13/1, Thana No.297 at Mauza-Oberia, 4.50 acres is in question. Originally, the entire property comprising 14.01 acres land belonged to the khewatdar namely, Manua Pahan, which was sold in auction-sale on 10.12.1935. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners namely, Ram Pratap Ram Nayak was the auction-purchaser. It is pleaded that he came into exclusive possession of 14.01 acres land and paid rent to the ex-landlord. After vesting of jamindari, jamabandi was opened in his name and he continued to pay rent to the State. The record of Mutation Case No.3152-R-27/2011-12 discloses that on the application of respondent no.5 filed on 15.12.2011, the Circle Officer ordered Aam Ishtihar (public notice) and a report from the Halka karamchari was called for. The next date fixed was 30.12.2011, when in view of the report of the Halka karamchari mutation in the name of respondent no.5 was ordered. Before