JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. K.K. Ambastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 2. Heard Mr. Vineet Prakash, JC to SC(L&C) appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 3. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: (a) For quashing the order dated 06.07.2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh in Lease Mutation Case No.3 of 1992-93 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition. By this order the learned Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh rejecting the petition filed by the petitioners for mutation of their names by way of succession with respect to the lands measuring an area of 0.02 acres out of Plot No.149/257 corresponding to Lease Holding No.132 situated at Mauza – Nawada, P.S. and District- Hazaribagh. (b) For quashing of the order dated 07.05.2008 passed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh in Hazaribagh Lease Succession Appeal No.84 of 2005 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed. 4. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the property in question originally belonged to Milkha Singh. The property in question stood in name of Milkha Singh by virtue of a registered-deed dated 01.04.1978 which is a Khas Mahal property. Subsequently, the lease was renewed vide lease-deed dated 30.06.1989 in favour of Milkha Singh. 5. Milkha Singh expired and he was survived by his wife and three sons namely, Sardul Singh, Sardar Ratain Singh and Sardar Gurdip Singh. Sardul Singh died leaving behind his only son namely, Manindar Singh. Sardar Ratan Singh died leaving behind Bhupendar Kaur as his widow and 3 daughters namely, Sunmit Kaur, kamaljit Kaur and Rupendar Kaur Raj @ Shaloo. The three daughters are the petitioners before this Court in this writ petition. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the property was mutated in the name of two sons of Milkha Singh in Mutation Case No.2 of 1988-89 and 3 of 1990-91 and thereafter, the wife of Milkha Singh filed an application for mutation claiming 1/3rd share of the property by virtue of amicable partition and the case was numbered as Mutation Case No.3 of 1992-93. 6. 6. Counsel for the petitioners submits that a proper enquiry was made and a proper recommendation was made by the authorities for passing the order of mutation in favour of the mother of the petitioners, but the final order could not be passed and during the pendency of the mutation case, the mother of the petitioners expired and after expiry of the mother of the petitioners, the three petitioners herein filed their application before the authority, so that the property could be mutated in their name only to the extent of their share. 7. Counsel for the petitioners submits that inspite of all positive recommendations of Khas Mahal Officer and Additional Collector in favour of the petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner refused to mutate the land in favour of the petitioners mainly on the ground that the same would amount to revenue loss vide order impugned dated 06.07.2005. Against this order, the petitioners filed appeal before the Commissioner, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 07.05.2008. The counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the clause in the lease-deed itself as contained in Annexure-1 as well as Rule 39 of Bihar Estate Khas Mahal Manual, 1953 it is apparent that for the purpose of succession by inheritance, there is no question of payment of Court fees and accordingly, there was no revenue loss involved in this case. 8. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submits that since the property was already mutated in the name of two sons of Late Milkha Singh and accordingly, the same could not have been mutated in favour of the wife of Milkha Singh and consequently, in favour of the daughters of the Ratan Singh, who are the petitioners before this Court. 9. Counsel for the respondent further submits that once an order of mutation has been passed, the same cannot be annulled by a subsequent mutation proceeding and the petition which was filed by the petitioners itself was misconceived. He further submits that order of mutation which was passed earlier was never challenged by the petitioners or their mother and no petition for its cancellation was filed. 10. He further submits that order of mutation which was passed earlier was never challenged by the petitioners or their mother and no petition for its cancellation was filed. 10. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioners submits that they may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition so that they may take appropriate steps against the mutation which has been passed earlier in favour of the two sons of Milkha Singh for which they will take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 11. Considering the fact that the earlier order of mutation was passed and considering the prayer made by the petitioners, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to move before the competent authority in connection with their grievance regarding mutation of the property involved in this case in accordance with law. 12. The writ petition is accordingly permitted to be withdrawn with aforesaid observation and liberty to the petitioners. 13. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case.