JUDGMENT: 1. Present writ petition has been preferred challenging the order, dated 22nd February, 2010 (annexure 4 to the memo of the petition), passed in Revision Case No. 101 of 2008 by the Mines Commissioner, whereby it has been directed that the lease granted in favour of Rajendra Yadav, s/o Shukar Yadav, is without any merit and there was no consent on the date given by the occupier of the land. Mines Commissioner has stated that respondent no. 5 is the occupier of land in question. 2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in fact Mines Commissioner has no power, jurisdiction and authority to pass the impugned order, dated 22nd February, 2010, at annexure 4, mainly for the reason that already a sale deed has been executed by respondent no. 5, dated 23rd July, 2002, which is a registered document, in favour of the present petitioner. Therefore, if lease is to be given to anyone, then consent of the owner is required under the existing laws and therefore, when one Shri Rajendra Yadav (son of Shukar Yadav) applied for mining lease, the present petitioner, who is the owner of the property in question, has given consent. Thereafter, respondent no. 5, inspite of the fact that he sold the property in question, claimed ownership and applied to District Mines Officer on 30th August, 2005 objecting grant of lease. Despite this objection and considering all relevant aspect of the matter, ultimately, mining lease was granted on 12th January, 2006 by the Government to one Shri Rajendra Yadav. It further appears that thereafter revision application, being Revision Application no. 31 of 2006, was preferred by respondent no. 5 before the Mines Commissioner and the Mines Commissioner passed order, dated 2nd May, 2008, in which a direction was given to the concerned Dy. Commissioner of the district to hold prima-facie enquiry about the alleged ownership of the petitioner as well as of the respondent No.5. Upon a detailed enquiry conducted by the Dy. Commissioner of the concerned district, an order was given, which is dated 6th August, 2008 and a copy of this order is annexed as annexure 6 to the memo of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5696 of 2010 (filed by respondent no. 5 of the present case). This writ petition, i.e. Writ Petition(Civil) No. 5696 of 2010 is withdrawn today by counsel for the petitioner of the said writ petition. 5 of the present case). This writ petition, i.e. Writ Petition(Civil) No. 5696 of 2010 is withdrawn today by counsel for the petitioner of the said writ petition. 3. Against order dated 6th August, 2008, passed by the Dy. Commissioner, a second round of litigation was started by respondent no. 5. before Revenue authorities. Again an application was preferred by respondent no. 5 before the Mines Commissioner. This time, ground taken by respondent no. 5 is altogether a different ground than what was already taken before the District Mines Officer on 30th August, 2005. Previously, respondent no. 5 was claiming ownership despite sale of the property in question to the petitioner by registered sale deed dated 23rd July, 2002 and now fresh claim is made before Mines Commissioner that he is the possessor of the property in question because revenue receipts are in the name of respondent no. 5 and some so-called revenue entries are in favour of respondent no. 5. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that neither old ground nor the two new grounds are helpful to respondent 5. Nonetheless, impugned order, dated 22nd February, 2011 (annexure 4 to the writ petition) was passed by the Mines Commissioner, whereby it has been held that consent given by petitioner to the lessee (Rajendra Yadav, s/o of Shukar Yadav) was illegal. Therefore, impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. Moreover, it is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that on more than one occasion, different title suits have been filed by respondent no. 5. 4. Title Suit No. 96 of 2005 was instituted by respondent no. 5 claiming ownership upon property in question despite registered sale deed of the year 2002. This suit was withdrawn by respondent no. 5 on 5th March, 2009 (copy of the order at annexure 3 to the writ petition). 5. Thereafter, again, another title suit, being Title Suit No. 72 of 2009 was instituted by respondent no. 5, in which also respondent no. 5 is claiming ownership upon property in question and it is prayed that registered sale deed, dated 22/23rd July, 2002, executed by respondent no. 5, who is plaintiff of Title Suit No. 72 of 2009, in favour of the petitioner, may be declared null and void and illegal. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that despite all tall claims made by respondent no. 5, who is plaintiff of Title Suit No. 72 of 2009, in favour of the petitioner, may be declared null and void and illegal. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that despite all tall claims made by respondent no. 5, no injunction application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. has been filed by plaintiff (who is respondent no. 5 of this writ petition) in Title Suit No. 72 of 2009 and instead of filing any application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C., respondent no. 5 approached different authorities, i.e. the Revenue authorities, claiming ownership and possession, at two different stages, and now it appears that what was not granted by the Civil Court has now been granted by the Mines Commissioner. The Mines Commissioner has not properly appreciated the fact that once there is a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner, i.e. sale deed dated 23rd July, 2002 and once consent was given by the petitioner in favour of the lessee (Rajendra Yadav, s/o of Shukar Yadav), it can not be upset by the Mines Commissioner either on the ground that respondent no. 5 is owner of the property or on any other ground, i.e. revenue entries are in favour of the respondent no. 5 and respondent no. 5 is in possession of the property in question as on the date of lease. This is an error, apparent on the face of record, committed by the Mines Commissioner and hence the order dated 22nd February,2011, deserves to be set aside. 6. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that over and above the aforesaid several errors committed by the Mines Commissioner as per Sub-Rule 8 of Rule 9 of Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 (enacted under section 15 of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957) requires consent to be given by the owner of the property in question and not by the occupier. Thus, as per the above provisions, the fact remains that if respondent no. Thus, as per the above provisions, the fact remains that if respondent no. 5 remains in possession of the property in question even after execution of the sale deed, dated 22/23rd July, 2002, in favour of the petitioner, then also only the petitioner can give the consent for lease and not the respondent no.5 as petitioner is the owner of the property in question by virtue of the aforesaid sale-deed. Further, in the present case, the petitioner is not only the owner but was also in possession of the property in question from the date on which the sale deed was executed. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the so-called revenue entries in favour of respondent no. 5 can not give title to respondent no. 5. Title passes upon execution of registered sale deed as per the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Revenue entries alone can not give any ownership and title to respondent 5. Likewise, revenue receipts can also not give ownership to respondent no. 5. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the Mines Commissioner and therefore, impugned order, dated 22nd February, 2010 (annexure 4 to the memo of the petition) deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Counsel for respondent no. 5 submitted that no error has been committed by the Mines Commissioner in passing the impugned order. Respondent no. 5 is in possession of the property in question and moreover, a title suit, being Title Suit No. 72 of 2009, has been instituted, which is pending before the court of Sub-Judge-VI, Hazaribag and therefore also, rightly a decision has been taken by the Mines Commissioner that till that suit is decided, the lease in favour of Rajendra Yadav (son of shukar Yadav) is not legal and in fact consent was not correctly given by the petitioner. Moreover, revenue entries of the property in question bears name of respondent no. 5. Revenue receipts are also issued in the name of respondent no. 5 and therefore, impugned order, passed by the Mines Commissioner, is absolutely true, correct, justified and in consonance with the facts of the case and this petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Counsel for the respondent State submitted that it is true that Revenue entries can not give title to a person. 5 and therefore, impugned order, passed by the Mines Commissioner, is absolutely true, correct, justified and in consonance with the facts of the case and this petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Counsel for the respondent State submitted that it is true that Revenue entries can not give title to a person. It is also correct that consent is to be given by the owner and not by the occupier for grant of Mining lease under the provisions of Sub-rule 8 of Rule 9 of Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 (enacted under section 15 of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957) and that the erroneous order, i.e. order dated 22nd February, 2010 (at annexure 4 to the memo of the petition) passed by the Mines Commissioner, has rightly been modified by the Mines Commissioner, vide order dated 20th September, 2010 (annexure 5 to the memo of the writ petition). 9. Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the order, dated 22nd February, 2010 (at annexure 4 to the memo of the petition)in Revision Case No. 101 of 2008, passed by the Mines Commissioner, mainly for the following facts and reasons. (I) From the facts of the case it appears that respondent no. 5 has executed a registered sale deed, dated 23rd July, 2002, in favour of the petitioner. Thus, petitioner is the owner of the property in question. It further appears from the facts of the case that even after sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner, still respondent no. 5 was not satisfied and he is approaching different authorities, i.e. a Civil Court, the Mining Commissioner of Jharkhand etc. filing different types of cases, mainly for the reason that one Shri Rajendra Yadav (son of Shukar Yadav), have mining lease for the property in question, inspite of the fact that for the above lease a consent has already been given by the petitioner as required under Sub-Rule 8 of Rule 9 of Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 (enacted under section 15 of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957). This consent is required to be given by owner of the property in question. (II) Despite respondent no. This consent is required to be given by owner of the property in question. (II) Despite respondent no. 5 ceased to be owner of property in question under Transfer of Property Act, 1882, he preferred an application before the District Mines Officer raising objection on 30th August, 2005, against grant of lease in favour of Rajendra Yadav for which consent was given by the present petitioner under the aforesaid Rules. (III) It appears that this objection and all the claims of respondent no. 5 had been considered before lease was granted to one Shri Rajendra Yadav (son of Shukar Yadav) on 12th January, 2006 and the objection by respondent no. 5 was overruled as it was apparently raised after sale of the property in question. (IV) Being aggrieved by this decision, a revision application, being Revision Case No. 31 of 2006, was preferred by respondent no. 5 before the Mines Commissioner, upon which an order was passed by the Mines Commissioner on 2nd May, 2008, whereby direction was given to the Dy. Commissioner of Hazaribag that he may inquire into the facts of the case as to who is owner of the property in question. Both the parties alleged their claims before the Dy. Commissioner, Hazaribag and ultimately, Dy. Commissioner, after making an enquiry into the matter, decided, vide order dated 6th August, 2008, that petitioner is owner of the property in question. This order is at annexure 6 to Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5696 of 2010, which is filed by respondent no. 5 of the present case. This writ petition, i.e. Writ Petition(Civil) No. 5696 of 2010, after some argument have been canvassed, is being withdrawn today by the learned counsel for the petitioner (respondent no. 5 of the present writ petition), upon instruction. Thus, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5696 of 2010 is disposed of as withdrawn. (V) It further appears that against the report, dated 6th August, 2008, given by the Dy. Commissioner, again respondent no. 5 preferred revision application, being Revision Application No. 101 of 2008, before the Mines Commissioner. In this case, respondent no. 5 is claiming possession of the property in question. Previously, before the District Mines Officer, respondent no. 5 was claiming ownership. The Mines Commissioner, on the ground that few Revenue entries are in the name of respondent no. 5, some revenue receipts are issued in the name of the respondent no. In this case, respondent no. 5 is claiming possession of the property in question. Previously, before the District Mines Officer, respondent no. 5 was claiming ownership. The Mines Commissioner, on the ground that few Revenue entries are in the name of respondent no. 5, some revenue receipts are issued in the name of the respondent no. 5 and respondent no. 5 is in possession of the property in question has passed the impugned order, without appreciating the fact that Revenue Entries do not give title or ownership to any party, as title or ownership of immovable property passes from one party to another on the basis of registered sale deed. Revenue entries are nothing but the consequences. If any person has become owner of a property by virtue of a registered sale deed in his favour, he should go to the revenue officials so that his name may now be registered in revenue entries, as the owner of the property in question. Sometimes, it happens in this country, especially in rural part of this country that after becoming owner of some property by way of a registered sale deed or by any other method stated in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the parties do not approach the revenue department for the change in the revenue entries and for mutation. It also happens in this country that grand father's name may be in the record and grand son is the owner of the property. Thus, the name in the revenue entry has nothing to do with the ownership, once a registered sale deed is executed in favour of a party. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Mines Commissioner. Similar is the case with the revenue receipts. Revenue receipts may or may not be issued in the name of the actual owner or title holder of the property depending on the fact as to whether the actual owner or the title holder has approached the revenue department and actually got their name entered in the records. Thus, revenue receipts also can not give title upon a property in all cases. (VI) In the present case, a sale deed was registered on 23rd July, 2002 by virtue of which the petitioner is the owner of the property in question. Rest of the documents are subsidiary and consequential. Thus, revenue receipts also can not give title upon a property in all cases. (VI) In the present case, a sale deed was registered on 23rd July, 2002 by virtue of which the petitioner is the owner of the property in question. Rest of the documents are subsidiary and consequential. There may be proper entries in the revenue or there may not be, but that does not mean that the person, who has purchased the property ceases to be the owner and the person, who is the predecessor in title, continues to be the owner. Revenue entries can not continue to confer ownership upon the person, who has already sold the property by a registered sale deed. It appears that the Mines Commissioner has unnecessarily appreciated these evidences. For this reason as well the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. (VII) Moreover, initially Title Suit No. 96 of 2005 was filed by respondent no. 5 claiming ownership of the property in question, which was disposed of as withdrawn on 5th March, 2009. Thereafter, one more title suit, bearing Title Suit No. 72 of 2009 has been instituted by respondent no. 5. It appears that time and again respondent no. 5 tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner inspite of the fact that a duly executed registered sale deed dated 23rd July, 2002 was in existence. This Title Suit No. 72 of 2009 is still pending before the Sub-Judge No. VI, Hazaribag. Surprisingly, no injunction application is preferred by this respondent no. 5 in this title suit under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. (VIII) Thus, it appears that respondent no. 5 is fond of making tall claims that respondent no. 5 is the owner of the property; that respondent no. 5 is in possession of the property; that name of respondent no. 5 is reflected in the revenue entries and that rent receipts are in the name of respondent no. 5. Despite these tall claims by respondent no.5, no application has been preferred under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. in the suit instituted by respondent no. 5, i.e. Title Suit No. 72 of 2009. It appears that respondent no. 5. Despite these tall claims by respondent no.5, no application has been preferred under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. in the suit instituted by respondent no. 5, i.e. Title Suit No. 72 of 2009. It appears that respondent no. 5 cleverly approached different authorities for getting the relief which he could not get in the title suits filed by him from the civil courts and at last he was successful in getting the same from the Mines Commissioner. (IX) The Mines Commissioner can not go into the question of ownership and possession of the property in question as the Mines Commissioner can not assume the role of Civil Court. A civil dispute ought to have been raised by respondent no. 5 under Section 9 of C.P.C. and should get a relief from the Civil Court. Once there is a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner, it is beyond the power, authority and jurisdiction of the Mines Commissioner to pass any order regarding ownership and possession of property purchased by the petitioner. This aspect of the matter has also not been appreciated by the Mines Commissioner while passing the impugned order. (X) Counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied upon the following decisions on the point that revenue entries can not give title upon the property. It may be in the name of the respondent no. 5. Similarly, revenue receipts may be in the name of the respondent no. 5 and this also can not give ownership to the respondent no. 5, especially when there is a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Following are the decisions cited in this regard. 1.(1997)5 SCC112-Baleshwar Tewari vs. Sheo Jatan Tiwari 2. (1996)6 SCC 223 -Sawarni vs. Inder Kaur 3. (2003)1 JCR 594 (Jhr)-Kashi Nath Bagaria vs. State of Bihar & Others (XI) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baleshwar Tewari vs. Sheo Jatan Tiwari & Others reported in (1997)5 SCC 112 , in para 15 as under: “15. Under these circumstances, even if any enquiry was conducted unless the appellant is given notice and an opportunity to adduce the evidence to establish his right in the enquiry made, the finding generally does not bind him.Entries in Revenue records is the paradise of the patwari and the tiller of the soil is rarely concerned with the same. Under these circumstances, even if any enquiry was conducted unless the appellant is given notice and an opportunity to adduce the evidence to establish his right in the enquiry made, the finding generally does not bind him.Entries in Revenue records is the paradise of the patwari and the tiller of the soil is rarely concerned with the same. So long as his possession and enjoyment is not interdicted by due process and course of law, he is least concerned with entries. It is common knowledge in rural India that a raiyat always regards the land he ploughs as his dominion and generally obeys, with moral fibre the command of the intermediary so long as his possession is not disturbed. Therefore, creation of records is a camouflage to defeat just and legal right or claim and interest of the raiyat, the tiller of the soil on whom the Act confers title to the land he tills.” (Emphasis supplied) Thus, in view of the aforesaid decision, entries in the revenue records is neither a proof of the title upon the property nor can it be used as a camouflage to defeat the legal right, title or interest of a person, who is owner of the property in question. Revenue entries neither can confer a title nor can it extinguish the right or title of the owner of the property. (XII) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sawarni vs. Inder Kaur & Others reported in (1996)6 SCC 223 , in paragraph no. 7 as under: “7...............Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment............................” (Emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid decision also the revenue entry can not confer a title upon the property to a particular person whose name is reflected in the revenue entry. Basically, revenue entry is nothing but a record maintained by the revenue authorities. Sometimes, it may reflect correct name and sometimes it may reflect even incorrect name. Basically, revenue entry is nothing but a record maintained by the revenue authorities. Sometimes, it may reflect correct name and sometimes it may reflect even incorrect name. Sometimes original owner is going for mutation at a belated stage after purchase of the property in question, but that does not mean that he is not the owner of the property in question because ownership of the property will be moved from one person to another in case of immovable property on the basis of registered sale deed, under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Thus, the correct proof of ownership is a registered sale deed in favour of a person. Revenue entry or revenue receipts have nothing to do with the ownership and they cannot be treated as a conclusive evidence of the ownership of the property. (XIII) In the case of Kashi Nath Bagaria vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in JCR 594 (Jharkhand), in paragraph 5 and 6, it has been held by this Court as under: “5. In the case of Sita Ram Chodhary and others v. State of Bihar and others. reported in 1993 (2) PLJR page 255, a Division Bench of this Court held that on mutation of name only the name of a person is entered in Register II for payment of rent. It neither creates right and title nor extinguishes right and title of any person. 6. In the circumstances, neither the petitioner nor the respondent No.s 4 to 6 can derive any advantage of orders passed by one or other Revenue Authority, as referred above. The parties are given liberty to move before a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief, as observed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag.” (Emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid decision also the revenue entry neither can create a right or title nor can it extinguish the right and title of any person. The remedy is available before Civil Court for right and title upon the property under challenge or in dispute. 10. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons and judicial pronouncement, I, hereby, set aside the order passed by the Mines Commissioner, dated 22nd February, 2010, in Revision Case No. 101 of 2008. and consequently, the order passed on 20th September, 2010 (annexure 5 to the memo of the writ petition) will also not have any effect. 11. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons and judicial pronouncement, I, hereby, set aside the order passed by the Mines Commissioner, dated 22nd February, 2010, in Revision Case No. 101 of 2008. and consequently, the order passed on 20th September, 2010 (annexure 5 to the memo of the writ petition) will also not have any effect. 11. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 5 that Title Suit No. 72 of 2009 may be expedited so that it may be disposed of finally by the competent civil court, instead of being decided, sometimes by the revenue officers and sometimes by Mining officers . 12. I, therefore, direct the Sub-Judge-VI, Hazaribag to expedite hearing of Title Suit No. 72 of 2009. It is submitted by counsel for respondent no. 5 that he is the plaintiff of the said suit. The plaintiff's evidence is closed and at present the suit is running at the stage of evidence to be led on behalf of the defendants, who is the present petitioner. I, therefore, direct the present petitioner that he shall cooperate with the trial court for speedy hearing and shall not ask for any unnecessary adjournment. 13. I, therefore, direct Sub-Judge-VI, Hazaribag to dispose of Title Suit No. 72 of 2009 on or before 30th March, 2012. 14. This writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid directions.