Judgment 1. CWJC No. 7056 of 2006 and CWJC No. 5816 of 2006 are inter related and, as such, with consent of parties have been taken up and are being disposed of together. As petitioner No. 1 of CWJC No. 7056 of 2006 is respondent in CWJC No. 5816 of 2006 and vice verse, the counsels have been heard and with their consent, these writ applications are being disposed of. 2. The principal controversy is with regard to jurisdiction of the Anchal Adhikari to deal with the application of the petitioners of CWJC No. 7056 of 2006 under the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on basis whereof Miscellaneous Case No. 25 of 2006 was registered. The petitioners in this first writ application submit that they had purchased certain lands and on basis of said purchase in terms of Sec. 14 of the said Act, they filed an application for their names to be mutated in the revenue records of the State that is the Jamabandi. On the other hand, the respodent of the first writ application being the petitioner of the second, contends that, this matter virtually stands settled by an earlier order of the DCLR (Annexure-H dated 01.10.1983) and that being so, the Anchal Adhikari lacks the jurisdiction. The first writ application is for a direction to the Anchal Adhikari to take up the proceedings and decide the matter whereas the second writ application is to prohibit the Anchal Adhikari from acting pursuant to the application as made by the petitioners of the first writ application for mutation. 3. The petitioners of the first writ application submit that they having purchased lands are entitled to get their names mutated in the Jamabandi in respect of those lands. It is for the Anchal Adhikari to decide the legality, propriety of their claim. On the other hand, the respondent who is petitioner in the second writ application contends that in effect, the petitioners of the first writ application are seeking for cancellation of Jamabanai which stands in his name and has been upheld by order passed by DCLR as referred to above. This cannot be done by the Anchal Adhikari. 4. The Act, as referred to above, is an Act for the purposes of maintenance of Government records. This cannot be done by the Anchal Adhikari. 4. The Act, as referred to above, is an Act for the purposes of maintenance of Government records. The Act does not recognize or confer any title or interest in any property on any person. It only recognizes the person from whom rent is to be realised in respect of lands. It, accordingly, makes provision of Sec. 14 of the Act to record successions, transfers etc which effects the State inasmuch as the right of a person from whom the rent is to be realised. Otherwise, it confers no title or interest in any person whatsoever. Sec. 3 of the provides for objection within limited periods to the continuous khatiyan once published. Transmutation of names by virtue of purchase or otherwise is not a case which is covered under Sec. 3 of the Act. It is only covered under Sec. 14 of the Act. Sec. 3 of the Act deals with original entries and objections thereto. Admittedly, in the present case, it is not a case of Sec. 3 of the Act. 5. On going through the provisions of the Act, it would appear that entries are to be recorded only for the purposes of collection of revenue and, therefore, it follows where complex questions of law with regard to inheritance and/or interest in property are called in question. The parties would be well advised to move competent Civil Court for declaration of their right, title and interest rather than fight it under the Act before Anchal Adhikari. 6. Having said the above inthe present case, the stage is premature to take a decision in the matter because it is well settled that every authority including a statutory authority has the inherent right to decide and give a judgment on its own jurisdiction. Objections as to its jurisdiction and/ or maintainability of any application before any authority are at the first instance to be decided by the said authority itself unless the authority acts without jurisdiction at the initial stage itself. The jurisdictional facts have to be noticed, tested and decided at the first/original stage where all objections of fact and law can be raised by all parties including the lack of jurisdiction or the maintainability of applications under consderation. 7. The jurisdictional facts have to be noticed, tested and decided at the first/original stage where all objections of fact and law can be raised by all parties including the lack of jurisdiction or the maintainability of applications under consderation. 7. In the present, it is this stage which is before the Anchal Adhikari and parties would be well advised to contest the matter there raising all objections as to jurisdiction and maintainability and the Anchal Adhikari would be well advised to consider and decide the preliminary issues before proceeding in the matter. 8. CWJC No. 7056 of 2005 is, accordingly, allowed and the Anchal Adhikari is, accordingly, directed to proceed in the matter and decide the same. 9. CWJC No. 5816 of 2006 is, accordingly, disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise objection as to maintainability of the application of the petitioners in the first writ application and to the jurisdiction of the Anchal Adhikari to be raised before him at the appropriate stage. 10. Needless to mention that all such objections, if any, raised would be decided by the Anchal Adhikari at the earliest. It is expected that the matter may not be lingered by any party and both the parties would cooperate and see that the matter is disposed of as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of this order.