ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.C. to Addl. Advocate General – I, who appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 5 & 6, who are mother and own brother of petitioner respectively. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for (i) quashing of order dated 21-07-2001 to 25-09-2001 passed in Mutation Case No. 444 of 2001-2002 by the Circle Officer, Jhajha, district – Jamui (hereinafter referred to as ‘Circle Officer’), (ii) quashing of order dated 11-07-2002 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Jamui (hereinafter referred to as ‘D.C.L.R.’) in Mutation Appeal No. 18 of 2001-2002 as well as (iii) quashing of order dated 28-08-2005 passed by the Collector, Jamui (hereinafter referred to as ‘Collector’) in Mutation Revision Case No. 17 of 2004-2005. The aforesaid orders have been annexed as Annexures ‘6’, ‘7’ and ‘8’ respectively to the writ petition. 3. The petitioner claims that in the year 1963, a plot measuring 11 ½ decimals of land appertaining to Khata No. 24, Kheshra No. 1224 in Mauza Nawadih, P.S.- Jhajha, District Munger (now Jamui) was purchased through registered sale-deed and subsequently, in mutation record, name of the petitioner was entered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that sale-deed was executed under the guardianship of father of the petitioner since at the time of execution of sale-deed, petitioner was minor. 5. The case of the petitioner is that on 29-02-2000, he executed a deed of gift in favour of his wife, Smt. Gita Devi and thereafter, Smt. Gita Devi applied for mutation on her name in the record, vide Mutation Case No. 498 of 2000-2001. He submits that after the death of his father, which occurred some time in the year 1995, mother of the petitioner and his own brother, who are respondent nos. 5 & 6 respectively, filed a petition for mutating their name also and as such, Mutation Case No. 444 of 2001-2002 was registered and finally, mutation case was allowed and the Circle Office directed for entering the name of respondent nos. 5 & 6 besides the petitioner in respect of land in question. 6. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, since land was purchased by the petitioner himself and land was already mutated in his name, at subsequent stage, the respondent nos. 5 & 6 besides the petitioner in respect of land in question. 6. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, since land was purchased by the petitioner himself and land was already mutated in his name, at subsequent stage, the respondent nos. 5 & 6 were not entitled to dispute the title and possession of the petitioner, claiming the same as ‘Benami Property’ of father of the respondent no. 6, who was husband of respondent no. 5. He submits that as per Section 4 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Benami Transaction Act’), the same was prohibited. He submits that ignoring the provisions of law, the learned Circle Officer allowed the mutation case and in similar manner, the D.C.L.R., vide Annexure – ‘7’ as well as the Collector, vide Annexure – ‘8’, has dismissed the petitioner’s appeal as well as the revision, which are unsustainable and are liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 5 & 6, while referring to averments made in their counter affidavit, submits that the land in question was joint property, since the land was purchased by the husband of respondent no. 5, however; mutation was done in the name of petitioner, who was minor at the relevant time. He further submits that after filing the mutation case by respondent nos. 5 & 6, the matter was got inquired and after obtaining report of Halka Karamchari as well as Circle Officer, the mutation order was passed. In the inquiry, it was found that petitioner and respondent nos. 5 & 6 were joint owner of the land and as such, recommendation was made for correcting the record and finally, the Circle Officer, on the basis of report available on record and examining everything, had passed order, whereby, besides petitioner, name of respondent nos. 5 & 6 was also incorporated in the mutation record. According to learned counsel for private respondents, there is no error in either of orders. 8. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also examined materials available on record. Fact remains that land in question was purchased under the guardianship of husband of respondent no. 5 and father of petitioner as well as respondent no. 6. At the time of execution of deed, the petitioner was minor. 8. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also examined materials available on record. Fact remains that land in question was purchased under the guardianship of husband of respondent no. 5 and father of petitioner as well as respondent no. 6. At the time of execution of deed, the petitioner was minor. Since the deed was in the name of petitioner, the mutation record was created in his name, however; after the death of the father of the petitioner, the petition was filed for mutating the name of respondent nos. 5 & 6 also. In the present case, though, petitioner has approached before this Court assailing the orders passed by three courts, fact remains that prior to filing of the mutation case by the private respondents, the petitioner himself had executed a deed of gift in favour of his wife on 29-02-2000 and thereafter, wife of the petitioner had filed mutation case, vide Mutation Case No. 498 of 2000-2001, which stood dismissed. The person, who was claiming title or possession on the basis of deed of gift, has not approached this Court, but the petitioner claiming to be sole purchaser of the land has approached this Court. So far as the application of Section 4 of the Benami Transaction Act is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that such dispute can well be agitated before the court of competent jurisdiction. So far as mutation of land in name of all the three persons i.e. petitioner and respondent nos. 5 & 6 are concerned, that has been done on the basis of inquiry conducted during the mutation proceeding and it was found that it was in joint possession of all the three persons and as such, order of mutation cannot be interfered with at this stage. 9. I do not find any ground for interference with either of orders. 10. The writ petition stands dismissed.