JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 5, 6 & 10. None had appeared for other respondents despite notice. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.3.2001 passed by the Collector, Khagaria in Mutation Revision Case No. 2/1999-2000, as contained in Annexure- 8, whereby the revision challenging the appellate order passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Khagaria in Appeal No. 7/98-99 had been dismissed and the orders passed by the appellate authority as well as by the Circle Officer, Khagaria in Mutation Case No. 5/97-98 had been upheld. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner made a claim for creation of Jamabandi in his favour on the basis of the fact that one of the sons of late Dilo Mandal, namely, Jhoti Mandal died issueless in 1966 itself. The entire property developed upon his other son, namely, Khedan Mandal. The petitioner was the descendent of Khedan Mandal. It was submitted that since the petitioner inherited the entire property, the Jamabandi running in the name of the respondents should have been cancelled by the Circle Officer concerned and fresh Jamabandi in the name of the petitioner should have been created. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents no. 5, 6 & 10 submitted that wrong facts have been placed on behalf of the petitioner inasmuch as Jhoti Mandal never died issueless, rather he was having a daughter and the private respondents are the descendants thereof. 5. The Circle Officer concerned had found, on the basis of the return filed by the ex-intermediary, that Jamabandis were running in the name of the respondents since long and, thus, he refused to cancel the earlier Jamabandi. The matter was then challenged in appeal which was dismissed. Ultimately, the appellate order was challenged before the Collector, Khagaria in Mutation Revision Case No. 2/1999-2000 which was also dismissed. 6. The Respondent No. 2 has stated in his order that the Jamabandi is already running in the name of Ramautar Mandal and Chhotelal Mandal and they are in possession of the lands also. The said Jamabandi was opened after the return filed by the ex-intermediary and is running since then. Thus, the Circle Officer has rightly not cancelled the Jamabandi, which were running since last more than 45 years. The said Jamabandi was opened after the return filed by the ex-intermediary and is running since then. Thus, the Circle Officer has rightly not cancelled the Jamabandi, which were running since last more than 45 years. He has further found that the revisionist and the opposite parties therein are related to the same ancestors and, thus, if any of the parties is aggrieved with the opening of the Jamabandis, which were running since last about 45 years, then proper course for the aggrieved party would be to get a declaration from the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, the revisional authority has refused to interfere into the appellate as well as the original order. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that in an appeal, which was preferred before this Court, challenging the original award and decree in a land acquisition case, and which was disposed of vide Annexure-2 by this Court, the private respondents had taken a plea that they had got the property by oral gift from their grandfather. However, before the Circle Officer, their plea was that the property of the grandmother had devolved upon them. 8. Be that as it may, this Court is also of the opinion that a Jamabandi which was created 45 years back cannot be cancelled and opened in somebody elses name without any valid reason. The respondent no. 2 was correct in dismissing the revision on this ground. The stand taken by the revisional authority that the proper course available to the petitioner would be to get a declaration from the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, is also correct. 9. As a result, this writ application is dismissed.