JUDGMENT S. N. P. Singh, J. 1. In this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has made a prayer for quashing an order and direction of the Anchal Adhlkari, dated the 22nd October, 1971, passed and given in Mutation Case No. 317 of 1971-72. A copy of the order sheet of that case, which contains the impugned order also has been made annexure "1" to the writ application. 2. The facts of the case, which lie in a narrow compass, are these: The petitioner purchased 7 bighas 7 kathas and 3 dhurs of land from one Anandmayee Bhattacharya. appertaining to Jamabandi No, 106/3268, plot No. 913/1 A, in Castor Town, Deoghar. After the purchase, the petitioner applied for mutation of his name before the Circle Officer, Deoghar. The Circle Officer, after some enquiry, by the impugned order dated the 22nd October, 1971 held that the name of the petitioner could be mutated only on the condition that he paid one fourth of the consideration money. 3. Mr. J. C. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, raised a short point that the imposition of one-fourth of the consideration money as a condition precedent to the mutation of the name of the petitioner is illegal and not authorised by law. As the transfer was of Basouri land, the provisions of The Santal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 are not applicable. It may however, be stated that, under section 52 of the said Act, exaction by a landlord from a tenant of anything in excess of the rent payable has been made penal. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it has been stated that the realisation of one fourth of the consideration money, which is known as "Chouth" "is based on the long' standing practice and custom of "Rohini Estate", which has vested In the State of Bihar. It is further stated that, as the ex-landlord used to realise the one-fourth of the consideration money as mutation fee, the State of Bihar also is entitled to do the same. Certain observation made by Mr. Gentzar in paragraph 31 of his final report on the revisional settlement has been relied upon in support of the fact that the ex-landlord used to realise one-fourth of the consideration money as mutation fee. Mr. Certain observation made by Mr. Gentzar in paragraph 31 of his final report on the revisional settlement has been relied upon in support of the fact that the ex-landlord used to realise one-fourth of the consideration money as mutation fee. Mr. Nagendra Prasad Singh, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the State, referred to paragraph 31 of the report of Mr. Gentzar, a copy whereof has been made annexure “B” to the counter-affidavit. On the basis of the above observation, learned Counsel submitted that the ex-intermediary had the customary right to realise one-fourth of the consideration money as mutation fee, According to learned Counsel, the State of Bihar is justified in exercising the same right as the interest of the ex-intermediary has vested in the State of Bihar. It is difficult to appreciate this submission. Merely on the ground that the ex-intermediary used to exact one-fourth of the consideration money as mutation fee, the State of Bihar cannot be legally justified in doing the same. The Government, as a matter of fact, did not approve of the illegal exaction by the ex-intermediary in respect of agricultural lands, and, with a view to stop that practice, a special provision in section 52 of the said Act has been made making the exaction by the landlord of anything in excess of the rent payable penal. The State cannot be heard to say that what it considers to be illegal in respect of agricultural lands is legal in case of Basouri lands. In my opinion, the State has no legal authority to ask a transferee of 'Basouri lands to pay one-fourth of the consideration money as mutation fee. 4. The application is, accordingly, allowed, the impugned order of the Anchal Adhikari dated the 22nd October, 1971, (Annexure “1”) is quashed and he is directed to dispose of the mutation application of the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Hearing fee is assessed at rupees one hundred only. I agree.