JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 08.05.2007, passed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag (respondent no.2) in Giridih Misc. Revision No.26/2003, whereby the order dt.13.12.2002, passed by the Additional Collector, Giridih in Misc. Case No.02/2002-03 was set aside. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dt.30.03.2002 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih, whereby the Circle Officer, Birni was directed to keep the jamabandi opened in the name of the three raiyats intact and continue to receive the rent from them. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that one Najo Koyari (Nijo Mahto as appears in cause title), father of the petitioner, had acquired a land under plot no.2, khata no.41, Sub-khata no.41/7, having area of 6.70 acres of village Garaguro(hereinafter called the said land) by way of settlement through Hukumnama granted by Ex-landlord Thakur Tulsi Narayan Singh in the year 1936. Thereafter, Najo Koyari made it cultivable and paid the rent to the ex-landlord and also obtained the rent receipts. At the time of vesting, the Zamindar submitted return before the state government and thereafter the state government also recognized the tenancy and since then the settlee Najo Koyari had been paying rent to the Government of Bihar. After the death of Najo Koyari, the petitioner came in physical possession of the land and paid rent to the State Government on 09.04.2001, the petitioner came to know that the private respondents in collusion with the Circle staff got their names mutated with respect to the said land and also obtained the rent receipt in their favour. The petitioner filed Misc. Case No.3/2001-02 before the Circle Officer, Birni for cancellation of Jamabandi opened in the name of the private respondents and thereafter the Circle Officer called for report from the Halka Karamchari who in turn submitted report stating that in the Hukumnama, return of ex-landlord and old Register-II, the name of Najo Koyari is recorded and without any order, the jamanbandi was opened in the name of Churaman Koyari and Moti Koyari. The Circle Officer vide order dated 15.07.2003 referred the case to the L.R.D.C Giridih for passing appropriate order, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 152 of 2001-02. The Circle Officer vide order dated 15.07.2003 referred the case to the L.R.D.C Giridih for passing appropriate order, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 152 of 2001-02. However vide order dated 30.03.2002, the Circle Officer was directed by the L.R.D.C. Giridih to continue with the settlement in respect of the private respondents. The petitioner, thereafter, filed Misc. Case No. 2/2002-03 before the Court of the respondent no.3 (Additional Collector, Giridih) which was allowed vide order dated 13.12.2002 with a direction to the Circle Officer to investigate the matter properly and create a Jamabandi in accordance with law. Aggrieved thereby, the private respondents filed revision before the respondent no.2 (Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh) vide Giridih Misc. Revision No.26/2003 which was allowed vide impugned order dated 08.05.2007 on the ground that the property was the joint property and after separation, the rent was paid by both the parties from 1979 to 2001 till Najo Koyari was alive and the same cannot be challenged after the lapse of 21 years. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the private respondents have failed to adduce any document before the courts below to show that the order of Jamabandi running in the name of the private respondents was passed by any competent authority. It is further submitted that the property exclusively belonged to the petitioner as the same was acquired by his father out of his own source of income and as such, the opening of Jamabandi in the name of the private respondents was bad in law. It is further submitted that the respondent no.2 has wrongly allowed the revision of the private respondents in the garb of section 24(a) of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act 1908. Since the property was not joint, the said section has no application in the present case. It is further submitted that the law of limitation runs from the date of knowledge and since the petitioner came to know about the fact only on 09.04.2001, there is no question of delay in challenging the jamabandi created in favour of private respondents. It is further submitted that the forgery committed by the private respondents is apparent from the return filed by the Ex-landlord as well as from the Tenants Ledger Register maintained at the Circle Office. 4. It is further submitted that the forgery committed by the private respondents is apparent from the return filed by the Ex-landlord as well as from the Tenants Ledger Register maintained at the Circle Office. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent-State while justifying the order dated 08.05.2007, passed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag and the order dated 30.03.2002, passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih submits that the aforesaid orders are completely legal and justified and as such, the same do not warrant any interference by this Court, whereas, the order passed by the Additional Collector, Giridih in Misc. Case No. 02/2002-03 suffers from legal and factual infirmity. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. The claim of the petitioner is that the said land was acquired by his father exclusively through Hukumnama executed in the year 1936 from the ex-landlord and since then he and his predecessor were in exclusive possession of the land and paid the rent to the ex-landlord and after vesting, to the State Government. On the other hand, the private respondents are claiming that the said land was acquired jointly by Churaman Koyari, Moti Koyari and Najo Koyari by way of Hukumnama in the year 1933 and after the partition, all the three persons came in separate possession of the said land and on the basis of their applications, separate jamabandi were opened in their name in the year 1978 and since then, they have been paying rent separately for their share. From the record of the case, it appears that the said land was acquired by way of Hukumnama and the year of execution of Hukumnama has been disputed by both the parties. It is not in dispute that Nejo Koyari, Churaman Koyari and Moti Koyari all sons of Mahadeo Mahto were members of the joint family. It is also not in dispute that in the Hukumnama, return and old rent receipt, the name of the father of the petitioner Najo Koyari appeared. It is not in dispute that Nejo Koyari, Churaman Koyari and Moti Koyari all sons of Mahadeo Mahto were members of the joint family. It is also not in dispute that in the Hukumnama, return and old rent receipt, the name of the father of the petitioner Najo Koyari appeared. However, in the year 1978 an application was filed in the office of Circle Officer for creating separate Jamanbandi in their name on the pretext that the property has been amicably divided and thereafter the separate Jamabandi was opened with respect to 2.23 ½ acres each in favour of Churaman Koyari, Moti Koyari and Najo Koyari and since then the rent was being paid by them separately till the death of Najo Koyari without any objection from any side. From the record, it appears that after the spot verification, the Halka Karamchari reported that the villagers have stated that the petitioner and private respondents are in the possession of respective shares of the said land. Thus, it is difficult to believe that before 2001, the petitioner had no knowledge about the opening of Jamabandi in the name of private respondents. The respondent no.2 appears to have rightly held that suddenly after about 21 years, challenge to long running jamabandi is not maintainable. So far the claim of the petitioner that the property was acquired by his father out of his own source of income and as such the property exclusively belong to him cannot be adjudicated by a mutating authority. It is a well settled principle of law that mutation proceeding is purely an administrative action which is decided based on possession, as the opening of jamabandi neither creates nor extinguishes right and title of any party upon the land, rather it is only for the purpose of collecting government revenue from the person who is found to be in possession of land. Since both the petitioners and private respondents have been found in possession of their respective share of land, there appears to be no illegality in the order of respondent no.2. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner, if so advised may take recourse before the appropriate Civil Court claiming right/title over the land in question.