JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 11.12.2014 delivered by the learned Single Judge in writ petition bearing W.P. (Civil) No.5945 of 2012, whereby the petition preferred by the respondent nos.06 & 07 was disposed of and the respondent nos.06 & 07 (original petitioners) were relegated to approach the revisional authority, hence, the original respondent no.06 has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. It appears in this matter that the original petitioners had preferred an application before the Circle Officer for mutation entries in their favour. On the basis of this application, it appears that three units were allowed to the petitioners under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. This application was never decided by the Circle Officer. 3. The present applicant, who is also original claimant in the land in question, had directly approached the appellate authority for mutation. This applicant instead of going before the Circle Officer, had approached the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Rajmahal. 4. It appears that the appellate authority had decided, as if it was a original authority, on an application preferred by this applicant and passed an order dated 11.07.1997 in favour of this applicant. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Rajmahal, respondent nos.06 & 07 (original petitioners) preferred an appeal under Section 15 the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1973” for the sake of brevity). This appeal was preferred by the original petitioners before the Additional Collector, Sahebganj, which was dismissed vide order dated 02.12.1997 against which, a revision application was preferred by the original petitioners under Section 16 of the Act, 1973 before the Divisional Commissioner, Dumka, who also dismissed the said revision application vide order dated 10.04.2002. Against this order, the original petitioner preferred writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.4040 of 2002. Meanwhile both, original petitioners as well as present appellant preferred Title Suit No.28 of 1997 and Title Suit No.7 of 1997 respectively, but thereafter both the title suits were withdrawn. Original petitioners withdrew the Title Suit No.28 of 1997 vide order dated 22.09.2000 and this appellant withdrew Title Suit No.7 of 1997 on 17.11.2011. Meanwhile both, original petitioners as well as present appellant preferred Title Suit No.28 of 1997 and Title Suit No.7 of 1997 respectively, but thereafter both the title suits were withdrawn. Original petitioners withdrew the Title Suit No.28 of 1997 vide order dated 22.09.2000 and this appellant withdrew Title Suit No.7 of 1997 on 17.11.2011. The writ petition being W.P.(C) No.4040 of 2002 was decided on 12.02.2007 on the point that whatever will be the outcome of the Title Suit No.7 of 1997, the mutation entries will be carried out in the revenue records. 6. Against the order passed in writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.4040 of 2002, Letters Patent Appeal No.134 of 2007 was instituted by the original petitioners, which was disposed of vide order dated 10.09.2007 affirming the order passed in writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.4040 of 2002 meaning thereby on the basis of out come of Title Suit No.7 of 1997, which was instituted by this appellant, the mutation entries shall be carried out in the revenue records. Having any reasons whatsoever, this appellant had withdrawn Title Suit No.7 of 1997 vide order dated 17.11.2011, hence, original petitioners again moved an application before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Rajmahal for mutation entries in their favour, because now there is nothing like Title Suit No.7 of 1997. This appellate authority, as stated hereinabove, under Section 15 of the Act, 1973 had dismissed the application preferred by the original petitioners vide order dated 26.06.2012 and hence, the original petitioners preferred the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.5945 of 2012 and the learned Single Judge has again relegated the original petitioners before the revisional authority and hence, the original respondent No.06 has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 7. It appears that gross error has been committed by both the authorities to this litigation by not approaching the first authority namely viz. 7. It appears that gross error has been committed by both the authorities to this litigation by not approaching the first authority namely viz. Circle Officer and in fact the Circle Officer should have decided an application preferred by the original petitioners so that the appellate authority namely viz., Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Rajmahal can decide appeal under Section 15 of the Act, 1973 and the matter cannot be decided directly by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Rajmahal and hence, the order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Rajmahal dated 11.07.1997 is, hereby, quashed and set aside and all the subsequent orders passed by the Deputy Collector, Sahebganj dated 02.12.1997 as well as subsequent order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka dated 10.04.2002 are also hereby, quashed and set aside. Similarly, the order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Rajmahal dated 26.06.2012 is also hereby quashed and set aside. The order dated 11.12.2014 passed in writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.5945 of 2012 is also hereby quashed and set aside. 8. The original petitioners as well as the original respondent no.06, who is appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal are at liberty to approach the Circle Officer, who is original authority under the revenue law for the mutation. Both the parties, i.e., the original petitioners as well as this appellant are at liberty to raise the contention before the Circle Officer, Rajmahal for getting mutation entries in their favour with all necessary documentary evidence and the Circle Officer, Rajmahal will decide the application for mutation entries preferred by the petitioners as well as objection/ application preferred by this applicant in accordance with law and on the basis of the evidence on record. 9. The revision application as preferred before the revisional authority shall have no effect at all in the eye of law as the petitioners are now relegated to approach the lowest authority, i.e., before the Circle Officer, Rajmahal and hence, the revision is not to be decided now as per the order passed in this Letters Patent Appeal. 10. With this observations, this Letters Patent Appeal is, hereby, disposed of. 11. I.A. No.1571 of 2016 is also disposed of in view of the disposal of this Letters Patent Appeal