ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed for following reliefs: (i) An appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of order dated 10.12.2012 issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Land Reforms), Ranchi whereby the appeal being Mutation Appeal No. 84-R-15/2012-13 has been admitted and Jamabandi created in Mutation Case No. 2916-R-27/2012-13 has been stayed. (ii) For issuance of further writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition prohibiting the Deputy Commissioner (Land Reforms), Ranchi to proceed with Mutation Appeal No. 84-R-15/2012-13 as the said appeal has been filed by Respondent No. 5 Jitendra Kumar Singh who has no locus standi to file the said appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, is that the land forming the subject matter of the instant writ petition, situated at Khata No. 113/158, R.S. Plot No. 754, Area 73 decimal, Village Kathalgonda, Thana No. 201, Holding No. 153/D, Ward No. 18, was owned and possessed by Vidya Nath Singh Deo and Pushpendra Nath Singh Deo through their predecessor-in-interest. The case of the petitioner is that the vendors offered to sell the land in question to the petitioner and accordingly upon payment of total consideration amount of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- (One Crore Fifteen Lacs) a deed of absolute conveyance was made on 14.09.2012, which was subsequently registered. After execution of the aforesaid sale deed, the petitioner applied for mutation in respect of the tenancy before the Circle Officer, Town Circle, Ranchi, which was registered as Mutation Case No. 2916-R-27/2012-13 and after conducting due enquiry correction slip was issued in the name of petitioner on 20.10.2012 and thereafter rent receipts were also issued in favour of petitioner. It has further been stated that respondent no. 5-Jitendra Kumar Singh, by way of undated letter, requested before the Deputy Commissioner (Land Reforms), Ranchi for cancellation of Jamabandi created in favour of petitioner on the ground that the land in question is in possession of S.S. Memorial College and petitioner is not in possession thereof. Further, one Monu Singh, by undated letter, addressed to the Circle Officer, Ranchi made similar complaint, which was enquired into by the Circle Inspector and Revenue Officer and submitted its report to the Circle Officer. The Circle Officer vide letter no. Further, one Monu Singh, by undated letter, addressed to the Circle Officer, Ranchi made similar complaint, which was enquired into by the Circle Inspector and Revenue Officer and submitted its report to the Circle Officer. The Circle Officer vide letter no. 3253 dated 08.12.2012 sent the report to the Deputy Commissioner (Land Reforms) making recommendation for cancellation of Jamabandi created in favour of petitioner by Mutation Case No. 2916-R-27/2012-13. On the basis of letter of respondent no. 5-Jitendra Kumar Singh and report of Circle Officer dated 08.12.2012, the Deputy Commissioner (Land Reforms), Ranchi instituted an appeal, which was registered as Mutation Appeal No. 84-R-15/2012-13 and admitted on 10.12.2012 and ordered that Jamabandi created by Mutation Case No. 2916-R-27/2012-13 shall remain stayed. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, being assisted by Mr. Vipul Poddar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Deputy Commissioner (Land Reforms) entertained the letter written by respondent no. 5-Jitendra Kumar Singh who is admittedly a third party and has no relation with the mutation proceeding initiated before the Circle Officer in Mutation Case No. 2916-R-27/2012-13. Further the Bihar Tenant Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 does not contain any provision conferring power upon the original, appellate or the revisioinal authority to accept the application submitted by the third party, hence, the appellate authority has committed gross illegality in entertaining the appeal on the basis of letter written by the third party (respondent no. 5 herein) which is nothing but contrary to the statutory provision and hence the appeal is without jurisdiction and the order passed by the appellate authority is not sustainable in law. 4. Mr. P.C. Roy, learned S.C. (L&C)-I, appearing for the respondents-State, referring to paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit, has submitted that being aggrieved by order dated 10.12.2012 passed by Land Reforms Deputy Commissioner, Sadar, Ranchi in Mutation Appeal No. 84-R-15/2012-13, during pendency of the mutation appeal, the present writ petition has been filed against the interim order and as such since the matter is still pending before the appellate authority, it would not be appropriate for this Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction conferred to the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute these factual aspects. 6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7. The undisputed fact is that after having purchased the land in question, the petitioner made an application before the Circle Officer for mutating his name, under the provisions of Section 14 of the Bihar Tenant Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, which was registered as Mutation Case No. 2916-R-27/2012-13. The revenue authorities, after conducting due enquiry, mutated the name of petitioner and thereafter rent receipts were also issued in favour of petitioner. The respondent no. 5-Jitendra Kumar Singh, made a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner (Land Reforms), Ranchi requesting for cancellation of Jamabandi created in favour of petitioner on the ground that the land in question is in possession of S.S. Memorial College. Further, one Monu Singh made similar complaint before the Circle Officer, Ranchi, which was enquired into and the Circle Officer vide letter no. 3253 dated 08.12.2012 sent the report to the Deputy Commissioner (Land Reforms) making recommendation for cancellation of Jamabandi created in favour of petitioner by Mutation Case No. 2916-R-27/2012-13. The appellate authority, on the basis of letter of respondent no. 5-Jitendra Kumar Singh and letter of Circle Officer dated 08.12.2012, instituted an appeal, which was registered as Mutation Appeal No. 84-R-15/2012-13 and admitted the appeal on 10.12.2012 and ordered that Jamabandi created by Mutation Case No. 2916-R-27/2012-13 shall remain stayed. 8. The question arises as to whether a third party can be allowed to participate in the proceeding arising out of a dispute in between either of the parties that too at this stage? The other question arises, as has been raised by learned counsel for the State, is that when the appeal is pending before the Deputy Commissioner (Land Reforms) would it would be appropriate at this juncture by this Court to exercise jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 9. Upon this, Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is having no instruction about the status of the pendency of the appeal, as per statement made in paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit. 9. Upon this, Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is having no instruction about the status of the pendency of the appeal, as per statement made in paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit. However, he submits that if that be so, liberty may be granted to the petitioner to raise these issues before the appellate authority, if the appeal is still pending before the appellate authority. 10. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the State has raised no objection to such prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. Mr. Ansuman Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 also has raised no objection to such prayer. 12. This Court, in view of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, is of the view that if the proceeding is pending before the appellate authority in which the impugned interim order has been passed, it would not be appropriate for this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, rather, it would be just and proper to grant liberty to the party to raise the issue before the appellate authority in the Mutation Appeal, if not already decided. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is held to be not maintainable at this stage and stands disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to raise the jurisdictional issue before the Deputy Commissioner (Land Reforms), if the appeal still survives. If the appeal is already decided it would be left open upon the petitioner to challenge the same before appropriate forum. It is further made clear that this Court, while disposing of the instant writ petition, has not gone across the merit of the issue. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.