JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.05.2015 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.2 in R.M.R Revision Case No. 18/2007-08 whereby the order dated 25.07.2007 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.3 in Appeal Case No. 1/1999-2000 as well as the order dated 18.08.1998 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.4 in Mutation Case No. 9 of 1997-98 have been affirmed. 2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioners purchased the ‘Basauri’ land appertaining to Jamabandi No. 15/4, Plot Nos. 62 & 63, measuring an area of 0.06 acre and 0.69 acre respectively (total area 0.75 acre), Mouza-Nawadih, P.S-Mohanpur, District-Deoghar [hereinafter referred to as ‘the said land’] from one Ajay Kumar Mitra, son of Shashidhar Mitra vide sale deed dated 14.12.1996. The said land was recorded in the last survey settlement in the name of Shashidhar Mitra and after his death, the petitioners’ vendor inherited the same being the heir of the said recorded tenant. After purchasing the said land, the petitioners filed an application for mutation of their names before the respondent No.4. On receipt of such application, a report was called from the concerned Karamchari, who confirmed the possession of the petitioners over the said land. However, the respondent No.4 refused to mutate the said land in the names of the petitioners stating that since the matter relates to the question of title over the said land, he is not competent to decide the said issue. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred appeal being Appeal Case No. 1 of 1999-2000 before the respondent No.3, however, the same was also dismissed. The petitioners then filed revision being R.M.R Revision Case No. 18 of 2007-08 before the respondent No.2, however, the said authority also refused to interfere with the orders passed by the respondent Nos. 3 & 4. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the claim of the respondent No.5 (the private respondent) that he has got the said land by way of a registered gift deed purported to have been executed in the year 1982 is false and concocted as the person (Dr. 3 & 4. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the claim of the respondent No.5 (the private respondent) that he has got the said land by way of a registered gift deed purported to have been executed in the year 1982 is false and concocted as the person (Dr. Tara Nath Mukherjee) from whom he claims to have got the gift, had denied the fact of executing any such gift specifically by swearing an affidavit before the respondent authorities which was further substantiated by way of the documentary evidences which suggest that the land in question is recorded in the name of Shashidhar Mitra. The respondent authorities have misconstrued the legal position by taking a stand that the name already entered in the Register-II cannot be disturbed by them being the revenue authorities. If the said principle is applied, then in that situation, if once a mistake is committed, the same would become incorrigible for the revenue authorities. It is further submitted that the petitioners purchased the said land vide sale deed dated 14.12.1996 and they came in possession of the same. However, the respondent authorities have arbitrarily refused to mutate their names in respect of the said land on the ground that the name of the private respondent is already mentioned in the Register-II. 4. Per-contra, learned counsel for the State-respondents submits that the respondent authorities provided ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the private respondent before passing the impugned orders and thereafter they have held that the entry made in Register-II with regard to the land appertaining to J.B. No. 15/4, Plot Nos. 62 & 63, measuring an area of 1.65 acres and J.B. No. 15/8, Plot No. 61, measuring an area of 1.26 acres, Mouza-Nawadih No. 531 stand in the name of ‘Basauri’ Raiyat Dr. Tara Nath Mukherjee on the basis of the return submitted by the ex-intermediary i.e. Ghatwal of the Khas Village-Nawadih. Said Dr. Tara Nath Mukherjee donated the said land to Pandit Binodanand Jha Memorial College, Deoghar through its Secretary (the respondent No.5) vide registered gift deed No. 1321/1982 and thereafter the name of the respondent No.5 was mutated vide order dated 18.11.1983 passed by the then Circle Officer Mohanpur in M.C. Case No. 03/1982-83 and since then the rent of the holding is being paid regularly by the respondent No.5. It is further submitted that the petitioners themselves have admitted that after purchasing the said property vide sale deed dated 14.12.1996, they went to the said land to take possession, but the respondent No.5 and its musclemen obstructed them due to which they could not take possession of the said land which is a prime requirement for mutation of any land. It is further submitted that there is dispute of title over the said land as there are rival claims of the parties and as such the respondent authorities have rightly directed the petitioners to seek remedy before the competent Civil Court. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the revisional authority-respondent No.2, it would appear that the parties were heard at length and after observing the fact that the mutation order passed in M.C. No. 3/1982-83 has attained finality and the Jamabandi of the said land has been running in the name of Pandit Binodanand Jha Memorial College, Deoghar through its Secretary, who has been paying the rent to the Government, the claim of the petitioners regarding their possession over the said land has been rejected. It is finally submitted that the revenue authorities are not competent to decide the dispute of title over the land in question and as such they have rightly directed the petitioners to move the competent Civil Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The petitioners have sought opening of the Jamabandi over the said land in their names by virtue of sale deed dated 14.12.1996 executed by the son of the recorded tenant. The original, appellate and the revisional authorities have rejected the claim of the petitioners observing inter alia that the Jamabandi of the said land has been running in the name of the respondent No.5, who has come in possession of the same by virtue of a gift deed executed by Dr. Tara Nath Mukherjee. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the alleged gift deed is forged and fabricated and the said fact would be evident from the affidavit of Dr. Tara Nath Mukherjee to the effect that he has not made signature on the said gift deed. 6. The learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahabir Mahto & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Tara Nath Mukherjee to the effect that he has not made signature on the said gift deed. 6. The learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahabir Mahto & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2012 (4) JLJR 210 , has held as under: “29. From the scheme of the above provisions it is clear that the application for mutation, obviously for alteration of the entries in the Continuous Khatian and Tenants' Ledger Register cannot be claimed by a person having totally adverse interest to the person whose name is entered in the revenue record and, therefore, the application filed for the entry of the names of the appellants with a claim that their source of right is independent and is adverse to the respondents / writ petitioners itself, was not maintainable. It appears that by passage of time, the mutation proceedings which has limited scope and which gives limited jurisdiction to the Anchal Adhikari under the Act of 1973 expanded to beyond its scope and in practice may have become an adversary litigation in a proceeding for entering the names of the person who is claiming right through the person whose name is recorded in the revenue record and, claiming the right by virtue of either death of original recorded person and being successor of the recorded persons or by virtue of transfer, exchange, agreement, settlement, lease, mortgage, gift, or by any other means or by virtue of the court's decree or by virtue of grant of land by the Bhoodan Yagna Committee or by virtue of consequence of the acquisition of the land under the Land Acquisition Act or other statutes, but legally, Anchal Adhikari has no jurisdiction to decide adverse claims, other than provided under Sections 3 to 13 of the Act.” 7. It is trite that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the claim of any person with regard to right, title and interest over any property, rather their duty is to collect rent from the person whose name has been recorded in the Register-II. Admittedly, the Jamabandi of the said land is running in the name of the respondent No.5 by virtue of a gift deed executed by the Basauri Raiyat-Dr. Tara Nath Mukherjee. Admittedly, the Jamabandi of the said land is running in the name of the respondent No.5 by virtue of a gift deed executed by the Basauri Raiyat-Dr. Tara Nath Mukherjee. Though the petitioners have claimed that the alleged gift deed is a forged document, yet the same is still in existence having not been declared null and void by any competent Court of law. The claim of the petitioners with regard to the right, title and interest over the said land cannot be adjudicated in the Writ jurisdiction of this Court, as the same would require leading of evidence by the parties in a full-fledged trial. Moreover, the possession of the petitioners over the said land has also been disputed by the respondents and the said fact has also been corroborated from the statement made in paragraph 12 of the writ petition wherein it has been stated that the musclemen of the respondent No.5 prevented the petitioners from taking possession of the said land. The petitioners have also failed to bring on record any material to prima facie suggest their possession over the said land. Thus, I am of the considered view that while passing the impugned orders, the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 have rightly rejected the petitioners’ claim for mutating their names in relation to the said land and as such I see no reason to interfere with the same. 8. The present writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. However, the petitioners may seek appropriate remedy in this regard before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction, if so advised.