Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16821 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Rajesh Kumar Mehta @ Raju 2. Rakesh Kumar, Both sons of Late Brijnandan Singh, residents of village- Dariyapur, P.S. Phulwarisharif, District- Patna 3. Ravindra Mistri 4. Rajeshwar Sharma @ Rajeshwar Mistri, Both sons of Late Keshwar Mistri 5. Surendra Prasad Sharma 6. Mahendra Sharma 7. Kameshwar Sharma @ Kameshwar Mistri 8. Jai Bishun Sharma, All sons of Late Rewa Mistri and residents of village- Dariyapur, P.S. Phulwarisharif, District- Patna 9. Bhola Kumar Singh 10. Sholey Kumar Singh, Both sons of Late Binod Singh, residents of village- Sadani Chak, P.S. Phulwarisharif, District-, 11. Rajnandan Ram S/O Baso Ram, resident of Jakkanpur, P.S. Jakkanpur, District- Patna, Secretary Jarasandh Nagar Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. Patna 12. Kunti Sinha W/O Rajesh Kumar, resident of village- Mirachak, P.S. Bind, P.O. Bind, District- Nalanda 13. Sushila Kumari D/O Ayodhya Prasad, resident of village- Misi, P.S. Bakhtiarpur, P.O. Misi, District- Patna 14. Sarita Sinha, W/O Shree Sudama Prasad, resident of village- Bari Gharari, P.S. Sarmera, District- Nalanda 15. Smt. Gulzari Devi, wife of Naresh Kumar, resident of Moh- Yarpur, P.O. G.P.O. P.S. Gardanibagh, District- .... .... Petitioners 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.16821 of 2010 (18) dt.25-11-2013 2 / 20 Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Collector, Patna 3. The Additional Collector, Patna 4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Patna Sadar, Patna 5. The Circle Officer, Phulwarisharif, Patna 6. Arshad Hasmi 7. Farhath Hasmi 8. Shaukat Hasmi, Sl. Nos. 6 to 8 are sons of Late Salim Hasmi 9. Kamrujama, son of Nasim Hasmi 10.Shahjad Majhar, son of Junad Ahmad Sl. No.6 to 10 are residents of Mohalla- Lodi Katra, Patna City, P.S. Khajekala, District- Patna 11. Shyamini Devi, wife of Bijay Sao Residents of village- Ahiara, P.S. Karpi, District- Jehanabad
Legal Reasoning
12. Rani Devi, wife of Sri Sunil Kumar 13. Sujit Kumar, son of Sri Jogendra Prasad, Both residents of village- Ranipur, P.S. Patna City Chauk, District- Patna .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Verma, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bijay Kumar Pandey, A.C. to G.P.20 For the Respondent nos.6 to 8 and 10: Mr. Kamla Prasad Roy, Advocate Mr. Rajiv Nayan Singh, Adv. Mr. Saya Ranjan Sinha, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR CAV ORDER -------------------- 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.16821 of 2010 (18) dt.25-11-2013 3 / 20 18 25 -11-2013 The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 03.06.2010 passed by the Additional Collector, Patna in Mutation Revision Case No.52/2009-10, whereby the learned Additional Collector has rejected the revision application filed by the petitioners declining to interfere with the order dated 24.08.2009 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms(hereinafter referred to as the “D.C.L.R.” ), Patna Sadar in Mutation Appeal no.13 of 1992-93, whereby he had confirmed the order of mutation dated 14.02.1992 passed in favour of private Respondents by the Anchal Adhikari, Phulwarisharif in Mutation Case No.1188/8 of 1991-92. Accordingly, the petitioners besides making prayer for quashing of order of the Additional Collector, have also prayed for quashing of order dated 24.08.2009 passed by the D.C.L.R. in Mutation Appeal No.13 of 1992-93 and also for quashing of order dated 14.02.1992 passed by the Anchal Adhikari, Phulwarisharif in Mutation Case No.1188/8 of 1991-92. The fact as pleaded by the writ petitioners is that private Respondents had filed an application before the Circle Officer, Phulwarisharif with a request to mutate the land total 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.16821 of 2010 (18) dt.25-11-2013 4 / 20 measuring an area of 3 acres 29 decimals , appertaining to Khata No.49, Khesra nos. 354, 521,522,523,524 and 527, Mauza- Dariapur , Thana No.108, Patna. Thereafter, a proceeding vide Mutation Case No.1188/8 of 1991-92 was initiated by the Circle Officer, Phulwarisharif and on receipt of the report of the Halka Karamchari and the Circle Inspector, the Circle Officer, Phulwarisharif found the possession of the private Respondents over the lands in question and on the basis of the same, accepted the prayer for mutation on the land in question. After receiving the fact regarding ex parte order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the D.C.L.R., Patna Sadar vide Mutation Appeal No.13 of 1992-93.However, the D.C.L.R., Patna Sadar finally by its order dated 24.08. 2009 dismissed the Mutation Appeal No.13 of 1991-92 and confirmed the order of mutation passed by the Anchal Adhikari, Phulwarisharif. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the Collector of the District by filing a Mutation Revision Case No. 52/2009-10. However, the said revision was finally entertained and rejected by the Additional Collector, Patna. It has been pleaded that one Kunja Mahto and his three sons, namely, Raudi Mahto, Ram Khelawan Mahto and Jiyan Mahto, were the members of Joint Hindu Family with having 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.16821 of 2010 (18) dt.25-11-2013 5 / 20 their properties stood in jointness and on account of the death of Kunja Mahto and Jiyan Mahto in the state of jointness , rest coparceners Raudi Mahto and Ram Khelawan Mahto came in possession of the properties in jointness. Raudi Mahto and Ram Khelawan Mahto took permanent settlement through permanent settlement deed dated 06.07.1927 for the lands measuring 9.34 acres including the lands which is subject matter of the present mutation proceeding in the name of Raudi Mahto and Most. Sitabo Kunwar, wife of Ram Khelawan Mahto and had been coming in possession over the same land. Sheikh Abdul Kadir sold 9 Annas Milkiyat interest including Khadkast and Bakast in tauzi no.5537 to Raudi Mahto and 3 Annas Milkiyat interest of Roop Lal Singh and Jaglal Singh , both sons of Pratap Singh of village- Sadanichak, Patna through the registered sale-deed dated 09.07.1929 and 4 Annas to his wife Most. Saftoon Nisa through a registered sale deed. Raudi Mahto and Ram Khelawan Mahto executed a tamasuk deed dated 05.03.1930 in favour of Sayed Md. Kalim , son of Md. Maulvi Ltifuddin and to Dr. Syed Md. Salim Hasmi, son of Md. Kalim to give their lands taken in permanent settlement along with their other properties and the tamasuk money had been paid. Raudi Mahto and Ram Khelawan Mahto executed tamasuk deed dated 11.07.1931 in favour of 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.16821 of 2010 (18) dt.25-11-2013 6 / 20 Md. Salim Hasmi in respect of the lands of Khata No.49. Raudi Mahto and Ram Khelawan Mahto on the same very day i.e. 11.07.1931 also transferred their 12 Annas milkiyat interest to Dr. Salim Hasmi through the registered sale deed but continued to cultivate the lands taken in permanent settlement as occupancy raiyats and, accordingly, were paying Nakdi rent for Khata No.49 to the Ex Land Lord even after sale of their milkiyat interest. Raudi Mahto died in the year 1935 leaving behind his son Hazari Singh, who happened/ happens to be the father of petitioner no.1 and brother of Ram Khelawan Singh as heirs, who came in joint possession of the entire property. Ram Khelawan Mahto for himself and in a capacity of the guardian of his nephew said Hazari Singh sold the lands appertaining to tauzi no.5537 , Khata No.49, Plot No.524 measuring .38 decimals , Plot No.523 measuring 52 decimals and 354 measuring .35 decimals situated in thana no.108 of Patna District in favour of Netlal Mistri, father of petitioner no.3 and grand father of petitioner nos. 4 to 7, through the registered sale deed dated 07.07.1936 and all the purchasers came in possession over the said land and were enjoying their right , title and interest over the same. Ram Khelawan Mahto and his wife died one after another leaving their entire properties in the ownership and possession of Hazari Singh, 7 Patna High Court CWJC No.16821 of 2010 (18) dt.25-11-2013 7 / 20 who through the registered sale deed dated 20.06.1942 sold the land appertaining to tauzi no.5537 Khata No.49 Plot No.354, 522, 524, measuring 1 Bigha 15 Kathas and 1 Katha 5 dhurs respectively in favour of Sirislal Singh and Manogi Singh, fore- fathers of petitioners. Thereafter, the lands appertaining to tauzi no.5537, Khata no.49, measuring 29 decimals and Plot No.524 measuring 21 decimals remained in possession of the petitioners. It has further been pleaded that in respect of the lands in question, Ex Landlord created Jamabandi in favour of the predecessors in interest of the petitioners and, accordingly, they paid rent to the Ex Landlord in token whereof rent receipts were issued and after vesting of Zamindari, the predecessors-in interest of the petitioners had /have been paying rent to the State of Bihar right from 1956 onwards. The son of Hazari Singh, namely, Rajnandan Singh filed a title petition suit bearing T.P. Suit No.167 of 1970 in the court of Sub Judge-II, Patna in respect of his joint family properties including the lands in question along with other properties allotted to petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and in view of the same, Circle Officer, Phulwarisharif after thorough enquiry passed order for mutating the names of petitioner no.1 by an order dated 20.08.1973 passed in Mutation Case No.71/8 of 1972-73. One Parmeshwar Singh and others filed petition for 8 Patna High Court CWJC No.16821 of 2010 (18) dt.25-11-2013 8 / 20 mutation of their names in respect of the lands belonging to Khata No.49 before the Circle Offricer, Phulwarisharif, who referred the case to the learned D.C.L.R., Patna Sadar and the learned D.C.L.R. in its order passed in Misc. Case No.9 of 1981-82 cancelled the Jamabandi stood in the name of Hazari Singh. Thereafter, Hazari Singh and others filed revision before Case No.46 of 1982-83 before the Additional Collector, Patna and the aforesaid revision was allowed by an order dated 11.04.1983 passed by the learned Additional Collector, Patna, who was pleased to set aside the order passed by the learned D.C.L.R. Parmeshwar Singh and others being aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector aforesaid filed revision before the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna bearing Case No.107 of 1983 but the same came to be dismissed by an order dated 14.02.1984 passed by the learned Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna. In a proceeding under Sections 103(A) of the Bihar Tenancy Act also the predecessors in interest of the private Respondents did not object to the surveyor’s report regarding the possession of the predecessors in interest of petitioner nos. 3 to 8 and , accordingly, the order has been passed by the competent authority for opening the Khata in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land described in the order dated 9 Patna High Court CWJC No.16821 of 2010 (18) dt.25-11-2013 9 / 20 07.03.2000 passed by the competent authority in connection with Case no.8 of 1998. The petitioners had been/have been paying rent to the State of Bihar and, accordingly, rent receipts were issued in their names. Netlal Mistri and Chunni Mistri died where after their descendants got the property partitioned and, accordingly, the lands in question described in Schedule-III of the Memo of appeal i.e. of Khata No.49 , tauzi no.5537, Plot No.524,523,354 , total measuring 31/1/2 decimals allotted to Rewa Mistri and so also 31/1/2 decimals of the land with the same description , as mentioned above in Schedule IV of the Memo of Appeal was allotted to the Ram Sakal Mistri and Tek Narayan Mistri , so also the lands described in Schedule V with the same description but the area measuring 65/1/2 was allotted to Keshwar Mistri , the father of present petitioner no.2 and they all have been coming in possession of the lands aforesaid and paying rents to the State of Bihar. Siris Lal Singh and Manogi Singh died whereafter the land described in Schedule-VII of the Memo of Appeal was allotted to Girjanandan Singh, who had been paying rent to the State of Bihar and sold his aforesaid land to Respondent no.7 , who had been coming in possession of the land and the half area of the land described in Schedule-VI of the Memo of Appeal i.e. 5 Kathas in Plot No.354 and 1 Bigha 5 10 Patna High Court CWJC No.16821 of 2010 (18) dt.25-11-2013 10 / 20 Kathas in Plot Nos.522 and 524 was allotted to Rajesh Singh, who owned and possessed the same and also paid rent to the State and thereafter sold 10 Kathas of land to Respondent no.8 and half area of the land described in Schedule VI was allotted to Binod Singh, who owned and possessed the same and has been paying rent to the State of Bihar. According to the petitioners, they owned the possessed their respective landed properties and had/ have been paying rent to the State of Bihar acknowledging the same and the State of Bihar issued rent receipts in their respective names. In the records of rights also, names of the petitioners were duly published/ maintained and even at the relevant period no objection was raised from any quarter inclusive of the private respondents. Sri Kamal Nayan Chaubey, learned Senior Counsel, who was assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, submits that the order of the Additional Collector, whereby he had rejected the revision filed by the petitioners, is without jurisdiction and contrary to the provision contained in Section 16 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1973”). He submits that as per Section 16 of the Act, 1973, only the District Collector was authorized to hear and 11 Patna High Court CWJC No.16821 of 2010 (18) dt.25-11-2013 11 / 20 dispose of Mutation Revision, but in the present case the order has been passed by the Additional Collector. He submits that this issue has already been settled long back in a case reported in 1978 BBCJ 323; Harihar Singh Vs. The Additional Collector I/C Land Reforms, Monghyr. He further submits that the Anchal Adhikari had allowed the mutation case filed by the private Respondents contrary to the provisions contained in Section 14(2) of the Act, 1973. He submits that 15 days notice was not given and, as such, the very order passed by the Circle Officer is liable to be set aside. It has been emphasized that the petitioners were continuously in possession over the lands in question since long. However, without proper notice to the petitioners, order was passed by the Circle Officer in favour of private Respondents. Accordingly, the order of the Anchal Adhikari and all consequential orders passed by the D.C.L.R. and the Additional Collector are liable to be set aside. In any event, it has been submitted that the Additional Collector had no authority or jurisdiction to entertain the mutation revision and pass order on the same and on this ground alone, the order of the Additional Collector is liable to be set aside. In this case, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent nos. 6 and 10. Sri Kamla Prasad Roy, 12 Patna High Court CWJC No.16821 of 2010 (18) dt.25-11-2013 12 / 20 learned counsel appearing on behalf of private Respondent nos. 6 and 10 , has argued that the petitioners have not come before this Court with clean hand, rather they have suppressed the material
Decision
facts and, as such, on this score alone , the writ petition is fit to be rejected. He submits that father of Respondent nos. 6 to 8, namely, Dr. Md. Salim Hashmi had purchased the land in question through a registered deed of absolute Sale dated 11.07.1931, bearing Deed no.2910 from Raudi Singh and others and Ruplal Singh and Jaglal Singh . As per counter affidavit of Respondent nos. 6 and 10, the lands appertaining to Tauzi No.5537, Khata No.49, situated at Mauza Phulwarisharif was under the Zamindari. The said Ex Landlord Sheikh Abdul Quadir sold 9 Aanas and 3 Aanas of Bakasht land appertaining to Tauzi no.5537 to Raudi Singh and others and Ruplal Singh, Jaglal Singh, sons of Pratap Singh of Sadali Chak respectively by executing registered deeds of absolute sale dated 09.07.1929 with respect thereto, whereas in regard to remaining 4 Aanas land thereof the said Sheikh Abdul Quadir executed a registered deed of gift in favour of his wife, namely, Saftunnisha. After purchase of said 9 Aanas and 3 Aanas of the said land, the said purchasers, namely, Raudi Singh and others as well as Ruplal Singh and Jaglal Singh took physical possession of the said land from the 13 Patna High Court CWJC No.16821 of 2010 (18) dt.25-11-2013 13 / 20 said ex landlord. The said purchasers, namely, Raudi Singh and Others and Ruplal Singh and Jaglal Singh sold the said purchased 12 Aanas of land along with proprietary interest (Khud Kast Bakasht) in regard thereto to Dr. Md. Salim Hashmi through a registered deed of absolute sale dated 11.07.1931 bearing Deed no.2910 and immediately handed over the physical possession of the same to Dr. Md. Salim Hashmi along with the proprietary interest ( Khud Kast Bakasht) ( Zamindari ) thereof. Dr. Md. Salim Hashmi subsequently purchased the remaining 4 Aanas of the said land along with Zamindari/Properietary interest ( Khud Khast Bakasht) with respect thereto from the said wife of the ex- landlord vide a registered deed of absolute sale dated 19.06.1941. On account of the said purchases the purchaser, namely, Dr. Md. Salim Hashmi acquitted physical possession over 6 Acres 3 decimals land appertaining to Tauzi No.5537 , Khata No.49 leading to accrual of right, title , interest with respect thereto. It has further been pleaded that during the revisional survey conducted by the State of Bihar, the officials/ authorities conducting the said survey having found Dr. Md. Salim Hashmi holding physical possession over the land in question, recorded his name in the Government records with respect to the said land. After the death of Dr. Md. Salim Hashmi, the respondents, being 14 Patna High Court CWJC No.16821 of 2010 (18) dt.25-11-2013 14 / 20 his legal heirs, as per the “Doctrine of Succession” acquired right, title, interest over the land in question apart from physical possession thereof. Subsequently, Respondent nos. 6 and 10 sold some portions of the land in question appertaining to Plot No.354 to Dinesh Singh, Surendra Prasad Singh, Savita Devi, Nilam Dubey and others by different deeds of sale and delivered physical possession of the same to their said respective purchasers on the basis of which the said purchasers got their names mutated in the Government’s Land Revenue Records with respect to their respective purchased land. Sri Kamla Prasad Roy, learned counsel for the Respondents further submits that virtually the petitioners have raised a dispute regarding right, title , possession and interest over the lands in question on the ground of being descendants of Raudi Singh & others without challenging the sale deed , as executed by Raudi Singh and others by registered deed of absolute sale dated 11.07.1931. He submits that the issue raised by the petitioners may not be adjudicated in Mutation Proceeding. He further submits that after the order of mutation in favour of private Respondents, same has been approved by the two courts i.e. D.C.L.R. and the Additional Collector, who have examined the issue in detail and passed reasoned orders. 15 Patna High Court CWJC No.16821 of 2010 (18) dt.25-11-2013 15 / 20 On the question of jurisdiction of the Additional Collector to entertain mutation revision, Sri Roy, learned counsel has argued that the Additional Collector was already authorized by the Government of Bihar vide its Notification no.586 (8) dated 28.05.2008, to hear and decide the mutation revision under Section 16 of the Act,1973. He submits that the Additional Collector has decided mutation revision filed by the petitioner on 03.06.2010 in Mutation Revision Case No.52/2009-10 and, as such, on the date, when the order was passed by the Additional Collector, he was having complete jurisdiction to decide Mutation Revision under Section 16 of the Act, 1973. In any event, according to Sri Roy, learned counsel for the private Respondents, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be rejected. In this case, a detailed counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of Respondent nos. 2 to 5/ the State of Bihar. Sri Bijay Kumar Pandey, learned A.C. to Govt. Pleader no.20 adopting the submissions made by Sri Kamla Prasad Roy, learned counsel for the private Respondents, submits that virtually before this Court, the petitioners are indirectly assailing the validity of registered deed of the year, 1931, executed in favour of private Respondents by filing a mutation case, which may not be decided 16 Patna High Court CWJC No.16821 of 2010 (18) dt.25-11-2013 16 / 20 by the Revenue Court. He submits that in the mutation proceeding, due enquiry was held and it was found that the private Respondents were having possession over the lands in question. The proceeding was initiated on the basis of registered sale deed. Since mutation was claimed on the basis of registered sale deed, the Circle Officer was having no option but to allow the mutation after following the procedure. Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent nos. 8 and 9 has adopted the submission made by Sri Kamla Prasad Roy, learned counsel for the private Respondents as well as learned counsel for the State. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. On perusal of Annexure-6 to the writ petition i.e. entire ordersheet of Mutation Case No.1188/8 of 1991-92, it appears that the proceeding was initiated on 29.09.1991 on the basis of application filed by the private Respondents for mutating the lands in question in their favour and a report was called for from the Halka Karamchari through Circle Inspector. After about one months on 29.10.1991, report of the Halka Karamchari and the Circle Inspector was received and in terms of Section 14(2) of the Act,1973, general notice as well as notice to the Jamabandi Raiyat was directed to 17 Patna High Court CWJC No.16821 of 2010 (18) dt.25-11-2013 17 / 20 be issued, which was properly served, which has been noticed in order dated 14.11.1991. However, no objection was received and, subsequently, on 14.02.1992 mutation order was passed in favour of private Respondents. On perusal of ordersheet of Mutation Case No. 1188/8 of 1991-92, it is evident that the proceeding was initiated and decided in compliance with the provision, contained in Section 14 of the Act, 1973. The petitioners, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the D.C.L.R., which was finally rejected, of course, belatedly in the year 2009. The order of the D.C.L.R. was again assailed by the petitioners by filing Mutation Revision Case No. 52/2009-10 and the Additional Collector by its order dated 03.06.2010 affirmed the order of Mutation as well as the order passed by the D.C.L.R. After hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record, the Court is satisfied that while passing the order of mutation in favour of private Respondents, the Circle Officer has committed no error . In the application filed for mutation, if it is filed on the basis of sale deed as well as if during the enquiry, possession of private Respondents were found over the lands in question, the Circle Officer was having no option but to create mutation in favour of private Respondents, which he did and, as such, the order of the Circle Officer suffers with no 18 Patna High Court CWJC No.16821 of 2010 (18) dt.25-11-2013 18 / 20 infirmity. Since mutation in this case was mainly allowed on the basis of registered sale deed, so long same is in existence; order of mutation may not be interfered with. If the petitioners were aggrieved with the sale deed, they were entitled to approach the court of competent jurisdiction. In any event, such issue cannot be a subject matter before the Revenue Court. So far the question raised by Sri Kamal Nayan Chaubey, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, on the point of lack of jurisdiction in the Additional Collector for deciding the mutation revision is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that at least in the facts and circumstances of the present case, same is not tenable. It is true that Section 16 of the Act,1973 suggests that mutation revision can be decided by the Collector of the District , but fact remains that the Additional Collector had already been authorized to decide the issue in the year 2008 by Notification No.586(8)/ Revenue dated 28.05.2008 issued by the Government of Bihar. If for the time being, it is assumed that even in view of notification, the Additional Collector was not competent to hear and decide the mutation revision the petitioners may not get any benefit after the enactment of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011. In view of Section 23 of the Act,2011, presently the order of the Additional 19 Patna High Court CWJC No.16821 of 2010 (18) dt.25-11-2013 19 / 20 Collector may not be questioned. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to quote Section 23 of the Bihar Land Mutation Act,2011: “23. Repeal and Savings.—(1) The Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (Bihar Act 28 of 1975) is hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal anything done or any action taken in exercise of the powers conferred by or under the said Act shall be deemed to have been done or taken in exercise of power conferred by or under this Act, as if this Act were in force on the day on which such thing or action were done or taken.” In view of repealing and savings provision of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011, as indicated above, since the matter is still pending and has not been finally adjudicated, it will be deemed that everything done and all action taken on the basis of powers conferred under the old Act shall be deemed to have been done in exercise of power conferred under the new Act. Accordingly, the order of the Additional Collector on the ground of lack of his competency/ jurisdiction may not be faulted presently after the enactment of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011. In any event , in view of facts and circumstances and the question , which has basically been raised by the petitioners pertains to adjudication of title , which may not be examined and 20 Patna High Court CWJC No.16821 of 2010 (18) dt.25-11-2013 20 / 20 adjudicated in mutation proceeding and, as such, it is not a case for exercising writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. NKS/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)