Order Aggrieved by order dated 09.01.2013 in Mutation Revision Case No. 07 R/15/2012-13 whereby, the order passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ranchi in Mutation Appeal Case No. 07 R/15/2012-13 has been affirmed, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner no. 1 claims herself the wife of one Budhu Singh and the petitioner no. 2 claims himself the son of the said Budhu Singh who died on 05.02.1982. After the death of his father, the petitioner no. 2 filed application for correction of name in the revenue record and on the basis of the report of the Circle Inspector, the name of the petitioner no. 2 was entered in the revenue record. Aggrieved, the respondent nos. 8 & 9 preferred Mutation Appeal Case No. 07R/15/2012-13 which was allowed vide order dated 12.07.2012 remanding the case to the Circle Officer for taking a decision afresh. The petitioners approached the revisional authority by filing the Mutation Revision Case No. 07 R/15/2012-13 which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 09.01.2013. In these facts, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is a matter of record that the petitioner no. 2 is the son of late Budhu Singh. In support of his claim, the petitioner no. 2 has produced school certificate, death certificate of his father and other documents. It is further submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is the wife of late Budhu Singh however, on fictitious claim made by the respondent nos. 8 & 9, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ranchi set aside the order passed by the Circle Officer whereby, the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue record. The petitioners have been paying rent for the land and they have been issued rent receipts thereof however, these facts were completely ignored by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ranchi. It is further submitted that a challenge was thrown by the petitioners to the claim of the respondent nos. The petitioners have been paying rent for the land and they have been issued rent receipts thereof however, these facts were completely ignored by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ranchi. It is further submitted that a challenge was thrown by the petitioners to the claim of the respondent nos. 8 & 9 of their being daughters of the recorded raiyat and it was pleaded before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms that unless an affidavit on oath is filed stating that they are the daughters of the recorded raiyat, no cognizance can be taken on their claim however, ignoring the same, vide impugned order dated 12.07.2012, the order passed by the Circle Officer has been quashed. It is submitted that the respondent nos. 8 & 9 if at all aggrieved by the order passed by the Circle Officer, should have approached the Circle Officer and appeal preferred by the respondent nos. 8 & 9 was not maintainable. It is further contended that the appellate authority erred in law in setting aside the order passed by the Circle Officer rather, he should have remitted the matter to the Circle Officer for further enquiry in the matter. 5. As against the above, Mr. Manoj Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand supported the order of the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority. Mr. Rohit Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 10 submits that there is serious dispute with respect to the claim made by the petitioners. He further submits that there are litigations pending between the parties including Probate Case No. 35/2002, S.T. Case No. 60/95 etc. In these facts, it is submitted that the order passed by the appellate authority does not suffers from any infirmity in law and the present writ petition is liable to dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions raised on behalf of the rival parties and after perusing the documents on record, I am of the opinion that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Referring to the plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the mutation appeal case preferred by the respondent nos. 6. I have considered the submissions raised on behalf of the rival parties and after perusing the documents on record, I am of the opinion that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Referring to the plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the mutation appeal case preferred by the respondent nos. 8 & 9 was not maintainable, I am of the opinion that any aggrieved person can prefer appeal against the said order and it is not the mandate of law that a person must approach the authority who has passed the original order. It is well-settled that power to review can be conferred by law and not otherwise. In such a situation, a question would necessarily arise whether the Circle Officer has power to review his own order. In the present case, no provision has been disclosed indicating that the Circle Officer has power to review his own order. Further contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority should have simply remitted back the case to the Circle Officer and he has no power to set aside the order passed by the Circle Officer, merits no acceptance. In every case in which the matter is remanded back to the authority/quasi-judicial authority, the order under challenge must be interfered with and that is precisely what the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ranchi has done in the present proceeding. I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 12.07.2012. As noticed above, there are serious disputes between the parties with respect to the claim raised by them and there are litigations pending between the parties. The respondent nos. 8 & 9 have alleged that after the order passed by the Circle Officer in favour of the petitioner no. 2, he sold the land in question to several other persons. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on the basis of false claim, compensation has been taken by several persons who are not entitled for the same. From the impugned order dated 12.07.2012, I gather that the Deputy Collector Land Reforms has taken note of the fact that the Circle Officer did not make enquiry about the other properties. The order passed by the Circle Officer discloses that on the basis of report of the Circle Inspector that petitioner no. From the impugned order dated 12.07.2012, I gather that the Deputy Collector Land Reforms has taken note of the fact that the Circle Officer did not make enquiry about the other properties. The order passed by the Circle Officer discloses that on the basis of report of the Circle Inspector that petitioner no. 2 is in possession, correction in the revenue record has been ordered. In the present proceeding, application filed by the petitioner no. 2 seeking mutation in his name has not been brought on record. Such application could have thrown light on the claim made by the petitioners. It also does not appear that after the application filed by the petitioner no. 2, notice as mandated under the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Acts, 1973, was issued in the present case. This is not the plea taken by the petitioners that the respondent nos. 8 & 9 having sufficient knowledge and information of the application for mutation in favour of the petitioner no. 2, did not appear before the Circle Officer. It does not appear that the facts brought on record in the present proceeding were disclosed to the Circle Officer. In these facts, the appellate authority has rightly quashed order of the Circle Officer and remitted the case back for a fresh consideration. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any error in the order under challenge and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.