ORDER : The order dated 05.09.2003 indicates that a direction was issued to the respondents to file affidavit disclosing why the direction issued by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1532/2001 was not complied with. Though no interim order was passed by this Court, the petitioner did not take any steps in the matter and the matter was listed only on 23.03.2011. It appears that thereafter, the matter was again listed on 16.05.2011 and 18.06.2012 however, the orders passed by this Court do not disclose that the petitioner took steps for final disposal of the writ petition. 2. Today on second call also, the counsel for the petitioner is absent. 3. Seeking a direction upon the Circle Officer, Nagar Untari respondent no.6 to mutate the name of the petitioner alongwith respondent nos. 8 and 9, the present writ petition has been filed. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of order dated 18.04.2001 in C.W.J.C. No. 1532/2001, the name of the petitioner and respondent nos. 8 and 9 have not been entered in the mutation register. The order dated 18.04.2001 in C.W.J.C. No. 1532/2001 discloses that the petitioner made the following prayer: “That the instant writ application is directed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, and/or direction/directions commanding upon the respondents, specifically respondent no.6, Circle Officer, Nagar Untari, District-Garhwa to mutate the name of the petitioner along with his two brothers who are proforma respondent nos. 9 and 10 when the Circle Officer, inspite of the order of Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, passed in Mutation Revision No. 152/1992-93 on 16.5.2000 is not mutating the name of the petitioner alongwith the proforma respondents.” 4. The order dated 24.02.1993 in Mutation Revenue No. 152/1992-93 reveals that the revision petition filed by one Damiyanti Devi was allowed. The petitioner was opposite party in the said revision petition. By the said order, the revisional authority cancelled the demand in the name of the opposite party i.e. the petitioner herein and a direction was issued to open a new demand in the name of Malti Devi in respect of land which she purchased from Damiyanti Devi and for rest of land, in the name of Damiyanti Devi. The petitioner herein preferred Mutation Revision Case No. 36/1993 challenging order dated 24.02.1993 in Mutation Revenue No. 152/1992-93. The maintainability of the second revision was challenged by Damiyanti Devi in C.W.J.C. No. 3709/1996(R). The petitioner herein preferred Mutation Revision Case No. 36/1993 challenging order dated 24.02.1993 in Mutation Revenue No. 152/1992-93. The maintainability of the second revision was challenged by Damiyanti Devi in C.W.J.C. No. 3709/1996(R). However, the said challenge failed by order dated 09.04.1997. Thereafter, the said revision petition was allowed vide order dated 09.03.1999 and the matter was remitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa. Vide order dated 16.05.2000, the revision petition was allowed and the order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Garhwa was upheld. It appears that vide order dated 07.03.1992 in Mutation Appeal No. 56/1990-91, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Garhwa upheld the order passed by the Circle Officer in Mutation Case Nos. 529/1989-90 and 703/1989-90. In the counter-affidavit, the respondent-state of Jharkhand has taken a plea that Partition Suit No. 29 of 1972 is still sub-judice and the revenue authorities are not competent to decide the right, title and possession of the parties. The order dated 18.04.2001 in C.W.J.C. No. 1532 of 2001 is not an order adjudicating the rights claimed by the petitioner rather, merely a direction to dispose of the application has been passed by the Court. It is stated that on the application filed on behalf of the petitioner, Misc. Case No. 710 of 1989-90 was initiated however, the petitioner did not appear in the Misc. Case and ultimately the said case was disposed of vide order dated 08.04.1993. It is further stated that the enquiry report of the Revenue Karmchari and the Circle Inspector does not disclose that the petitioner or his brothers were in possession of the land in question. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts, the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be allowed. I find no substance in the writ petition and, accordingly, it is dismissed. Petition dismissed.