JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, counsel for the petitioners. 2. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (i) For quashing the order dated 21.05.2010 (Annexure-4) passed by the respondent no. 2 in Mutation Revision No. 53 R 15/07-08. (ii) For quashing the order of affirmation dated 12.01.2007(Annexure-3) passed by the respondent no. 3 in Mutation Appeal No. 3/04-05. (iii) For quashing the order dated 07.04.2004 (Annexure-2) passed by the respondent no. 4 in Mutation Case No. 171/03-04. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits as under:- A. The property involved in this case is R.S. Plot No. 1049, Khata No. 142, village Murhu. B. The original writ petitioner (since deceased and now substituted by the present petitioners) filed Title Suit No. 22/1997 for declaration of his right title, interest and confirmation of possession in connection with the said property which was decreed vide judgment dated 12th March 2003. In the said suit the state of Jharkhand was one of the defendants. By referring to paragraph no. 18 of the judgment, the petitioners submits that it has been specifically found that the plaintiff has proved his case and he is in continuous possession over the disputed land since 60 years without any obstruction and interruption of the defendant and accordingly the plaintiff had succeeded to prove his title by adverse possession. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff on contest. C. Immediately after passing of the aforesaid judgment and preparation of the decree, the original writ petitioner on 23.03.2004 filed application for mutation before the Circle Officer, Murhu being mutation case no 171/ 2003-04 along with the copy of the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit. The said authority on irrelevant consideration and ignoring the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit, rejected the application for mutation by order dated 07.04.2004 in spite of the fact that no objection was raised by any person pursuant to the notice issued in the mutation proceeding. The said authority on irrelevant consideration and ignoring the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit, rejected the application for mutation by order dated 07.04.2004 in spite of the fact that no objection was raised by any person pursuant to the notice issued in the mutation proceeding. D. Against this order dated 7.4.2004, the petitioners filed appeal being Appeal Case No. 3/2004-05 before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector who vide order dated 12.01.2007 found that the Circle Officer has totally ignored the documents, including judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 22/1997 produced by the petitioners and accordingly remanded the case back to the Circle Officer with certain directions. E. Pursuant to order dated 12.1.2007 passed in mutation appeal no 3/2004-05 the respondent no 4 passed an order dated 5.10.2007 advising the original writ petitioner to challenge the order of the appellate authority before the revisional authority. F. Accordingly the original writ petitioner filed revision being Revision No. 53 R-15/2007-08 before the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti which was disposed of vide order dated 21.05.2010 by holding that the appellant has not produced any document in his support and upheld the order passed by the authorities below. G. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 21.05.2010 is perverse in as much as the lower court's order passed by the Circle Officer was already set aside by the Appellate Court and the matter was remitted back to the Circle Officer for passing fresh order, but the Revisional Court having upheld the order of the lower court has committed serious error in disposing of the revision application by impugned order dated 21.05.2010.The counsel for the petitioners refers to the mandate of law as per Section 14 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act 1973. 5. Counsel for the respondents submits that as the Appellate Court had remanded the matter to the Circle Officer for passing fresh order after considering the materials, judgment and decree passed in Title Suit, therefore the matter may be considered by the Circle Officer afresh in accordance with law. 6. 5. Counsel for the respondents submits that as the Appellate Court had remanded the matter to the Circle Officer for passing fresh order after considering the materials, judgment and decree passed in Title Suit, therefore the matter may be considered by the Circle Officer afresh in accordance with law. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and after hearing the counsel for the parties, this court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter back to the circle officer, Murhu with a direction to pass fresh order on the application for mutation filed by the original petitioner as per law taking account the provisions of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act 1973. It appears that the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 22/1997 has not been properly considered by the authorities below. 7. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 21.05.2010 (Annexure-4) passed by the respondent no. 2 in Mutation Revision No. 53 R 15/07-08; Order dated 12.01.2007(Annexure-3) passed by the respondent no. 3 in Mutation Appeal No. 3/04-05 and order dated 07.04.2004(Annexure-2) passed by the respondent no. 4 in Mutation Case No. 171/03-04 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Circle Officer, Murhu for passing fresh order in accordance taking into account the provisions of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act 1973 as well as the judgment and decree passed by the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction in Title Suit No. 22/1997 declaring right, title and possession of the petitioner over the suit property. The Circle Officer, Murhu, Khunti is directed to pass reasoned and speaking order after hearing the parties within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the application for mutation was filed by the original writ petitioner who expired during the pendency of the writ petition and have been substituted by the present petitioners, the present petitioners may move appropriate petition before the circle officer, Murhu, Khunti for being impleaded in the proceedings before the said authority. 8. The writ petition is allowed with aforesaid observation and direction.