JUDGMENT

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - Since similar issues are involved in both these writ petitions as such the same have been heard together, and now are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The whole dispute involved herein is for quashing the order of mutation passed in favour of the respondent No.4- Rajeshwari Devi.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that they are the actual title holder for that a title suit has been filed being Title Suit No.178 of 2005 in which the said Rajeshwari Devi is also one of the defendants.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the order of mutation has been passed on the basis of decree passed in the Partition Suit No.16/10 of 1988, wherein decree for partition has been passed and the said decree has been executed, in view thereof, the order or mutation has been passed by the revenue authority since there is serious dispute over the title for which the dispute is going on therefore, the revenue authority ought to have waited for the outcome of the Title Suit No.178 of 2005 but without doing so the order impugned has been passed, therefore, both the writ petitions have been filed.

5. On the other hand Mr. D.K. Prasad assis