JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing of the order dated 18.10.1995 passed by the Circle Officer, Dumka in R.M. Case No.14/95-96 and order dated 20.02.2002/01.04.2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka in Rev. Misc. Appeal No.59/1995-96, whereby and whereunder the circle officer , Dumka had mutated the names of opposite parties nos.4 to 6 and thereafter Deputy Commissioner (Respondent No.2) issued orders and directions to the circle officer to enter the name of the opposite parties nos.4 to 6 with respect to the portion of Plot no. 1626 of Dumka Town, in Register-II and also rent receipts. 2. The brief fact of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, reads as under: 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the absolute owners having subsisting title to a piece of land measuring 10 Kathas 17 Dhurs and bearing plot no.1626 situated in the town of Dumka, District-Dumka. The aforesaid land once upon a time belonged to one Probodh Chandra Dey. The said Prabodh Chandra Dey executed a deed of lease with respect to a portion of aforesaid plot no.1626 in favour of late Babulal Sharma. The said lease was created for 25 years w.e.f. 02.07.1936. 4. After commencement of the lease, said Prabodh Chandra Dey executed a deed of absolute sale being deed no.128 on 09.03.1937 with respect to the entire area of Plot no.1626 in favour of same Babulal Sharma. On 09.03.1937, Prabodh Chandra Dey was divested of all right, title, interest and all sorts of concern with the entire lands of plot no.1626 which came under the absolute ownership of Babulal Sharma. 5. The said Babulal Sharma was looking after the entire affairs of family and after his sudden death, the petitioners became helpless and ignorant of all the papers, deeds and all other documents regarding the properties and business etc. On 16.03.1937, Prabodh Chandra Dey again created two leases with respect to the land of plot no.1626 in favour of Md. Matin and also executed a deed of sale with respect to the same land in favour of Md. Hussain, son of Md. Matin on 25.03.1937. 6. On 16.03.1937, Prabodh Chandra Dey again created two leases with respect to the land of plot no.1626 in favour of Md. Matin and also executed a deed of sale with respect to the same land in favour of Md. Hussain, son of Md. Matin on 25.03.1937. 6. The aforesaid two documents are said to have come into existence on 22.04.1937, one was Bazi Dava purported to have been executed by the said Babulal Sharma and the another was the deed of cancellation executed by Prabodh Chandra Dey with respect to the sale deed dated 09.03.1937 in favour of Babulal Sharma. 7. After expiry of 25 years from the date of creation of the lease in favour of Babulal Sharma, a dispute arose between these petitioners and their mother and one more brother, both deceased on the one hand and Md. Matin Ancestor of the O. Ps nos. 4 to 6. Md. Matin filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner and their brother Shyam Sundar Sharma and mother Mani Devi, which was registered as Suit no. 72 of 1961. 8. This suit was with respect to a portion of Plot no.1626 measuring 70 x 65 with specified boundaries. The defendants of the said suit being the petitioners and others put in written statement and denied the claims of the plaintiff for decree of eviction. 9. The learned sub-judge while considering the validity of lease deed dated 02.07.1936 with other issues dismissed the suit by disallowing the claim of Md. Matin for eviction vide Judgment dated 5.7.1963 which was followed by a formal decree drawn up on 15.7.1963. 10. The plaintiff of the suit being ancestors of O.Ps. no 4 to 6 preferred an Appeal no.71/63/9/68 against the said judgment and decree and the learned District Judge by his judgment dated 13.1.1969, dismiss the appeal and confirm the judgment and decree passed by the learned sub-judge. The judgment of the 1ST Appellate court was followed by a formal decree drawn on 19.01.1969 and signed & sealed on 20.01.1969. 11. On 18.02.1969, the plaintiff/appellant preferred second Appeal no.68 of 1969 before the Hon'ble High court of Judicature at Patna. On 01.12.1975, the Hon'ble Court dismissed the second Appeal but granted leave to file L.P.A. 12. On 22.12.1975, the appellant preferred the L.P.A. No.48 of 1975 which was also dismissed on 07.07.1983. 13. 11. On 18.02.1969, the plaintiff/appellant preferred second Appeal no.68 of 1969 before the Hon'ble High court of Judicature at Patna. On 01.12.1975, the Hon'ble Court dismissed the second Appeal but granted leave to file L.P.A. 12. On 22.12.1975, the appellant preferred the L.P.A. No.48 of 1975 which was also dismissed on 07.07.1983. 13. It is the further case that it was in the year 1963-64 that the learned Circle Officer started a rent fixation proceeding being Mutation case no. 15/1963-64 and decided it in favour of the petitioners and entered their names in Register II being the tenants ledger and according to the petitioners, paid rent to the state up to 1993-94. 14. Md. Matin filed Mutation Appeal No.06 of 1964-65 before the L.R.D.C., Dumka but the same was dismissed on 22.06.1965. But without giving proper opportunity to the petitioners, passed another order on 01.11.1965 directing the circle officer to maintain status quo till the matter was finally decided and to continue the names of Md. Matin in the Zamabandi. This order of L.R.D.C. was subject to final decision of the dispute by the competent court. 15. The direction of the L.R.D.C., Dumka was not given effect to and the petitioners went on making payment of rent. But the petitioners suddenly learnt that under the Order of the S.D.O., Dumka, the Mutation of the respondent nos.4 to 6 have already been done vide order dated 18.10.1995 and hence, the petitioners could not pay the rent after 1994. 16. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred Rev. Misc. Appeal no. 59 of 1995-96 before the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka. The Deputy Commissioner ignored completely the final decision of subsisting title of the petitioners with respect to the entire lands of plot no.1626. 17. It is the case of the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner, according to his own assumptions, divided the lands into two parts, i.e., Part-‘A’ and Part-‘B’ and ordered to enter the names of the respondents no. 4 to 6 with respect to Part-A and allowed the names of the petitioners to continue with respect to Part-'B'. 18. 17. It is the case of the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner, according to his own assumptions, divided the lands into two parts, i.e., Part-‘A’ and Part-‘B’ and ordered to enter the names of the respondents no. 4 to 6 with respect to Part-A and allowed the names of the petitioners to continue with respect to Part-'B'. 18. It is further contended that for passing such order, the learned Deputy commissioner assigned unsustainable reason that Mutation is done on the basis of mere possession in absence of evidence of title and thereby he appears to have assumed that the petitioners have no evidence of title to the entire lands of plot no.1626 even after final adjudication by all the judicial courts. 19. It appears from the factual aspect, as per the pleading as referred hereinabove that the lease deed was executed in between one Prabodh Chandra Dey and Babulal Sharma, the grandfather of the writ petitioners on 02.07.1936 with respect to the land located at plot no.1626, Thana no.6, Ward no.3, Dumka, measuring about 10 Kathas and 17 Dhurs approximately for the period of 25 years. Further late Prabodh Chandra Dey executed sale deed in favour of Babulal Sharma which was registered on 09.03.1937. 20. Again, the said Prabodh Chandra Dey executed lease deed for 99 years in favour of ancestors of private respondents for a part of the said land and also the right of the realization of rent vide deed dated 16.03.1937. The said Prabodh Chandra Dey also executed sale deeds on 25.03.1937 in favour of the ancestors of the private respondents with respect to the remaining portion of the aforementioned land. 21. The said Babulal Sharma came in possession of the land and started a business of petrol pump. The ancestors of the private respondents initiated an eviction suit along with damages including arrears of rent by way of title suit no.72/34 of 1961-1962. The said title suit of the plaintiff, ancestors of the private response, was dismissed vide decree dated 05.07.1963 passed in Title Suit no. 72/34 of 1961-1962, wherein, the learned trial Court has found the sale deed executed in favour of Babulal Sharma to be valid and declared his absolute right over the entire property mentioned in the Schedule. 22. The plaintiff had preferred an appeal against the order dated 05.07.1963, but the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 13.01.1969. 23. 72/34 of 1961-1962, wherein, the learned trial Court has found the sale deed executed in favour of Babulal Sharma to be valid and declared his absolute right over the entire property mentioned in the Schedule. 22. The plaintiff had preferred an appeal against the order dated 05.07.1963, but the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 13.01.1969. 23. The plaintiff had preferred second appeal which also dismissed vide judgment dated 01.12.1975, thereafter, letters patent appeal being LPA No.48 of 1975 was filed by the plaintiffs against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in second appeal which was also dismissed vide order dated 07.07.1983. 24. Meanwhile, the case for fixation of rent, was filed under the provision of Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 which was registered as Mutation Case No.15/1963-1964. The said mutation case was decided in favour of the petitioner and the rent was paid. 25. The ancestors of private respondent filed Mutation Appeal No.06 of 1964-65 before the L.R.D.C., Dumka but the same was dismissed on 22.06.1965. However, another order was passed on 01.11.1965 by the L.R.D.C., Dumka directing the circle officer to maintain status quo till the matter was finally decided and to continue the names of Md. Matin(ancestor of private respondent) in the Zamabandi. This order of L.R.D.C. was subject to final decision of the dispute by the competent court. 26. The direction of the L.R.D.C., Dumka was not given effect to and the petitioners went on making payment of rent. But the petitioners suddenly learnt that under the Order of the S.D.O., Dumka, the Mutation of the respondent nos.4 to 6 have already been done vide order dated 18.10.1995. 27. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred Rev. Misc. Appeal no. 59 of 1995-96 before the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka and vide order dated 20.02.2002/01.04.2002 the Deputy Commissioner marking two parts of the land and created mutation in favour of private respondents with respect to Part-A of the land. 28. It appears from the record that the revisional authority has passed the order based upon the finding recorded by the concerned revenue authority by taking into consideration the fact that the land which has been sought to be mutated in favour of the private respondents, was found to be in possession of the part of the said land and therefore, the order of mutation was passed. 29. 29. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved, is before this Court by filing the instant writ petition for quashing the order passed by the revenue authorities. 30. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioners assisted by Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, has submitted that once the decree having been passed in title suit no.72/34 of 1961-1962, it was not available for the revenue authority to pass an order of mutation in favour of private respondents. Since, the competent Court of civil jurisdiction while deciding the title has passed the decree holding therein that the private respondents were having no jurisdiction/locus to ask for the eviction of the petitioner, since, the said lease, basis upon which, the title was claimed and the eviction was sought, was already invalidated due to lapse of time, as per the terms and conditions of the lease. 31. It has been contended, therefore, that once the decree has been passed discarding the locus of the private respondents, then, the revenue authority ought to have taken into consideration the aforesaid fact, while passing an order under the Act, 1973 for creating mutation in favour of the private respondents, but, having not done so, it is not only the statutory mandate as provided under the Act, 1973 having been violated, rather, the decree passed in title suit no.72/34 of 1961-1962 has also been flouted, therefore, it is a fit case where the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities are fit to be quashed and set aside. 32. Per contra, Mr. Gaurang Jojodia, learned AC to GP-II appearing for the State and Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents have jointly taken the ground by referring to the decree passed by the learned Court below, wherein, as per the reference of the property as under Schedule-A, the subject matter of the suit was the portion of the land, since, the total land comprises of an area of 10 Kathas and 17 Dhurs. 33. 33. It has been submitted by referring to the portion of the land, which was the subject matter of the title suit no.72/34 of 1961-1962, wherein, the decree was passed against the private respondents that the part of the upon which the private respondents is in possession was not in any way, was the issue of title suit no.72/34 of 1961-1962 and the revenue authorities based upon the application filed on behalf of the private respondents regarding creation of mutation in their favour. 34. The revenue authorities, on taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, has passed an order of mutation in favour of the private respondents after calling upon the report from the concerned Circle Officer based upon the possession of the private respondents. 35. It has been contended that the principle for passing an order of mutation, is on the basis of the possession of a party who is seeking for creation of mutation in his favour which has got nothing to do with the title, that is the reason, the order impugned has been passed. 36. On the premise that the same pertains to serious dispute of title and as such, the parties have been given liberty to approach before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction for adjudication of right and title. 37. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that if in the aforesaid premise, the possession of the private respondents has not been disputed, rather, the sole ground of the petitioner is the decree passed by the trial Court in title suit no.72/34 of 1961-1962, which is not in any way concern with the property, for which, the revenue authority has passed an order, hence, the order passed for adjudication of right and title for approaching the competent jurisdiction of the civil court, cannot be said to suffer from an error. 38. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as also the factual aspects/findings as has been discussed along with the conclusion by the revenue authorities. 39. The admitted fact herein is that total land is 10 Kathas and 17 Dhurs approximately. The part of the land was transferred by way of lease deed with respect to the land located at plot no.1626, Thana no.6, Ward no.3, Dumka. 40. 39. The admitted fact herein is that total land is 10 Kathas and 17 Dhurs approximately. The part of the land was transferred by way of lease deed with respect to the land located at plot no.1626, Thana no.6, Ward no.3, Dumka. 40. It appears from the factual aspect that for the part of the land, i.e., an area of 65 x 70 feet, comprising of total area of 6 Kathas and 5 Dhurs out of 10 Kathas and 17 Dhurs, was the subject matter of the suit. 41. The decree has been passed by learned trial Court, the subject matter of the suit, i.e., the part to the extent of 6 Katha and 5 Dhur was decreed against the private respondents holding the private respondents having no locus to ask the petitioner for their eviction and the recovery of rent from them. 42. The aforesaid decree was challenged before the first appellate forum, second appellate forum, the learned Single Judge and finally before the letters patent appeal as per the reference made hereinabove. 43. The decree passed in the aforesaid title suit being title suit no.72/34 of 1961-1962, as attained its finality by its affirmation up to the letters patent appellate court. 44. This Court, after having discussed the aforesaid fact, has considered the order passed by the revenue authorities so as to come to the conclusion as to whether the part of the land, which was subject matter of the suit being the title suit no.72/34 of 1961-1962 was the subject matter before the revenue authority in passing the order of mutation in favour of the private respondents. 45. It is evident from the order passed by the revisional authority, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner, wherein, the details of the land have been shown to be in two parts, i.e., Part-A and Part-B. 46. The revenue authority has passed the order by taking into consideration the pleading of the parties that the land comprising area of 6 Katha and 5 Dhur was/is in possession of the predecessor-in-interest/ancestors of the petitioners. However, so far as the rest part of the property is concerned, the same has not found to be in possession of the petitioner, rather, as per the report, it has been found to be in possession of the private respondents. 47. However, so far as the rest part of the property is concerned, the same has not found to be in possession of the petitioner, rather, as per the report, it has been found to be in possession of the private respondents. 47. The revenue authorities have also considered that the property which is in possession of the petitioners comprising area of 6 Katha and 5 Dhur was the subject matter of the dispute in title suit no.72/34 of 1961-1962. 48. In the backdrop of the aforesaid fact and for the purpose of passing an order of mutation on taking into consideration the fact that the property in question since was not the subject matter of the title suit and has been found to be in possession of the private respondents, as such, the order of mutation was passed. 49. In the aforesaid context the law is well settled that mutation does not create or extinguish the title, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation., Aurangabad through its commissioner vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2015) 16 SCC 689 wherein at para-13 it has been observed as under: “13. It is settled that mutation does not confer any right and title in favour of any one or other, nor cancellation of mutation extinguishes the right and title of the rightful owner. Normally, the mutation is recorded on the basis of the possession of the land for the purposes of collecting revenue.” 50. Similarly in the case of Jitendra Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802 the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the same view in the para-8 which is being quoted hereunder: 8. In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186 , it is observed and held by this Court that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only “fiscal purpose”, i.e., payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court. Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only “fiscal purpose”, i.e., payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court. Similar view has been expressed in the cases of Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58 ; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin, (2008) 8 SCC 12 ; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368 ; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689 ; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342 ; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191 ; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259 ; and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70 . 51. The main ground taken on behalf of the petitioner that once the title suit has been decided in favour of the petitioner, then how can the revenue authority pass the order of mutation sitting upon the decree passed by the competent Court of civil jurisdiction. 52. But this Court, on appreciation of the factual aspect as per the discussion made hereinabove, has not found substance in the said argument, reason being that the aforesaid title suit has got no way related with the land which is in possession of the private respondents (opposite parties no. 4to 6), rather, it is related to the extent of an area comprising of 6 Katha and 5 Dhur. 53. Further, it appears that the revenue authorities have considered the possession of the private respondents over the land in question, which according to the considered view of this Court, is the requirement of law for the purpose of creating mutation based upon the principle, the mutation neither creates or extinguishes the title over the land in question. 54. This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid reason, is of the view that if in such circumstances, the revenue authority has passed the order of creating mutation in favour of the private respondents by granting liberty to the petitioner to file civil suit, if any dispute of title is there over the land in question, which cannot be said to suffer from an error. 55. In the result, the instant writ petition fails and is dismissed. 55. In the result, the instant writ petition fails and is dismissed. 56. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stand disposed of.