Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. -by this application, the petitioner has raised a question as to whether a mutation proceeding abates in terms of Sec.4 (e)of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act. 2. By reason of the impugned order, the learned Land Reforms deputy Collector (hereinafter referred to as the L R. D. C.) has held that such a proceeding abates. 3. Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that as the proceeding for mutation initiated in terms of the provisions of Mutation Manual, the authorities concerned are not courts, nor proceeding before them is judicial proceedings and thus the question of involving provisions of Sec.4 (c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) does not arise. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Rabindra Prasad Singh V/s. Commissioner, Patna and others, 1990 blj 542 . Unfortunately in that judgment, the questions posed in this application were not considered nor the notice of the Bench was drawn to the earlier decision of this court in the case of Gobri Singh V/s. The State of Bihar and others, AIR 1978 Pat NDC, 88 wherein a Division Bench of this Court has clearly held that the mutation proceedings are administrative proceedings are not judicial proceedings, 3. It is not disputed that the Mutation Manual is really compilation of executive instructions issued by the State of Bihar and thus it does not have any statutory force. The sources of the authorities exercising power of mutation does not flow from any statute.4. Such a statute enacted by the legislature of Bihar being Bihar tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1973) has been made applicable in the entire State of Bihar only in 1990. It is, thus, clear that the officers, acting under the provisions of Mutation Manual are not courts nor the proceedings before them are judicial proceedings. 5. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the provisions of Section 4 (c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of fragmentation Act, 1956 cannot have any application whatsoever in relation to a mutation proceedings. 5. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the provisions of Section 4 (c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of fragmentation Act, 1956 cannot have any application whatsoever in relation to a mutation proceedings. The decision of Rabindra Prasad Singhs case, 1990 blj 542 , having been rendered without takine into consideration the aforementioned question as also without taking into consideration the earlier division Bench decision of this Court in Gobri Singhs case (supra), the same is not a binding precedent and must be held to have been rendered per incuriam 6. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by two Full bench of this Court in the case of Rabindra Prasad Singh V/s. The Commissioner, patna and others, 1990 BLJ Vol 2 page 592) as also a recent decision of this Court in the case Sundari Devi V/s. The State of Bihar and others, 1993 PLJR 231. It however goes without saying that the Land Reforms deputy Collector shall be entitled to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. It has been stated before us that in relation to the self-same matter, a consolidation proceeding is pending before the Collector. The land Reforms Deputy Collector shall also consider this aspect of the matter. This application is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside but without any order as to costs. Application allowed.