ORDER Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State. 2. Petitioner approached this Court with a prayer to direct the respondent no. 3 to decide his mutation application dated 6th November, 2012, in respect of piece of land bearing Plot nos. 211 and 212 of Khata nos. 27 and 28 of Village Kolghatti, Thana No. 32 in the District of Hazaribag, which he claims to have purchased from the recorded tenant by a registered Deed no. 1072 dated 21st January, 2004 and Deed no. 1378 dated 28th January, 2004 respectively. Petitioner claims to be in possession thereof. He also sought restraint upon the respondent no. 3 from interfering in his peaceful possession over the same piece of land. 3. On being directed, learned Government Advocate on behalf of Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit sworn by respondent no. 3, Circle Officer, Sadar Anchal, Hazaribagh. The averments in the counter affidavit indicate that application for mutation made on behalf of the petitioner was rejected on 27th August, 2012 in Mutation Case no. 1461/2012-13. Copy of the order sheet of the mutation case is enclosed as Annexure-A. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order was never communicated to the petitioner and has been brought on record for the first time by way of counter affidavit. 5. It now therefore appears that the main prayer of the writ petitioner does not survive any more. Once the application for mutation has been rejected by the respondent no. 3, petitioner, if aggrieved, has remedy before the appellate forum in terms of Section 15 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal may be time barred as the order of rejection is dated 27th August, 2012. The Appellate Authority may be directed to consider the question of delay sympathetically in view of the fact that the order was never communicated to the petitioner. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and submission of the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority within a period of 3 weeks from today, if aggrieved, by the order of rejection of mutation application. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and submission of the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority within a period of 3 weeks from today, if aggrieved, by the order of rejection of mutation application. In case, such an appeal is preferred before the appellate authority in terms of the provision of Act of 1973, the appellate authority would consider the question of delay sympathetically in the light of the facts noticed herein above. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently, I.A. No. 1939 of 2016 also stands disposed of.