Judgment B.M. Mitra, J. The instant petition is directed against Order No.3 dated 4.2.99 which is appended as Annexure 'K' to the writ petition. From a perusal of the said order, it appears that the disputed plot was vested to State in B.R. Case No. 33/69 under West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. Therefore, a conclusion has been sought to be arrived at from the reference of the particulars of B.R. Case, as noted above, that the petitioner is a post-vesting purchaser and post-vesting purchasers are not entitled to get any title to the land already vested. The petitioner wants to challenge the said finding and it is doubtful as to how far the said question is amenable to challenge particularly under writ jurisdiction where a fact finding scrutiny has already been made and a conclusion has already been arrived at. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that on previous occasions the concerned officer has certified to the effect about the petitioner's possession and rent receipt is being issued. In support of the same, a reference was drawn to the case of Panchu Molla vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 1980 Vol. II CLJ I, where it has been held that when the State Government has mutated the name of the petitioner as a tenant and has' accepted rent from him as a tenant, the State Government cannot treat the said land as a vested land and settle the same to other persons. It must be held that the State Government has recognised the tenancy in respect of the land in question. This court feels that the proposition of law, as canvassed in the aforesaid cited decision, may not hold good as on this present day in view of the tenor of decisions passed by the Apex Court and by way of illustration a reference was made to the Apex Court decision in the case of Sm. Sawarin vs. Sm. Inder Kaur & Ors., reported in 1996 Vol. VI S.C.C. 223, where it has been held that mutation of a property in the revenue record does not extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value or title. It only enables the person to pay the land revenue in question. Even another reference may be made to the case of S.J. Patel vs. V.J. Patel, reported in 1996 Vol. VI S.C.C. 223, where it has been held that mutation of a property in the revenue record does not extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value or title. It only enables the person to pay the land revenue in question. Even another reference may be made to the case of S.J. Patel vs. V.J. Patel, reported in 1996 Vol. VI S.C.C. 433, where it has been opined by the Apex Court that mutation entries are only to enable the State to collect rent to put the person in possession and enjoyment of property right, title and interest thereto should be established de hors the entries. Entries are only one of the modes of principles of enjoyment of property. Mutation entries do not create any title or interest therein. 2. In view of the above decisions of the Apex Court, this court is left with no other alternative but to hold that mutation does not help the writ petitioner. However, in view of the admitted position that the petitioner is alleged to have constructed his residence on a portion of the suit plot, he may put forward the allegation so that the question of settlement in respect of a part of the suit land may be considered by the authorities so that his residence may not be affected but the same is subject to subjective discretion of the authorities based on pre-requisite fulfilment of conditions. 3. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition stands liable to be dismissed on contest. Writ petition dismissed.