JUDGMENT : The present writ application has been filed for quashing of the order, dated 20.12.2017, passed by the Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna, in B.L.T. Case No. 289 of 2017, whereby the Tribunal has affirmed the order, dated 04.11.2016, passed by the Collector, Lakhisarai, in Jamabandi Correction Appeal Case No. 85 of 1990- 91 (Munger)/14 of 1994-95 (Lakhisarai) and the order, dated 21.09.1990, passed by the D.C.L.R., Lakhisarai, in Jamabandi Correction Case No. 13 of 1984-85. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the correction slip issued by the Circle Officer, Surajgarha, vide memo no. 781, dated 06.07.2018, whereby the Circle Officer has directed for issuance of rent receipts in favour of respondent no. 4. 2. The recorded tenant sold the land in favour of the father of the petitioner at Rs. 30/- by way of oral sale in the year 1950. Rent Fixation Case No. 50 of 1954-55, for 1.53 decimals of land, was initiated and the Circle Officer fixed the rent of 1.53 decimals of land in favour of the petitioner’s father and jamabandi no. 364 was created. Thereafter, the petitioner started paying rent to the State of Bihar, but in the year 1978, respondent nos. 4 to 6 purchased the land from the heirs of bataidari raiyat and thereafter, correction of jamabandi case was filed by the private respondents, which was allowed by the D.C.L.R., Lakhisarai, on 21.09.1990, holding that oral sale is not permissible. The Collector, Lakhisarai and the Tribunal affirmed the order passed by the D.C.L.R., Lakhisarai, on the same analogy. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that long standing jamabandi is running in the name of the petitioner, which cannot be interfered with by the Revenue Authorities and only the Civil Court can exercise jurisdiction in this regard. 4. The Collector, Lakhisarai and the Tribunal affirmed the order passed by the D.C.L.R., Lakhisarai, on the same analogy. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that long standing jamabandi is running in the name of the petitioner, which cannot be interfered with by the Revenue Authorities and only the Civil Court can exercise jurisdiction in this regard. 4. In support of his submission, learned Counsel relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court, in the cases of Sameer Singh and Another v. Abdul Rab and Others, reported in 2015 (1) PLJR 64 (SC), Janki Singh and Another v. The State of Bihar and Others, reported in 2016 (3) PLJR 101 , Maya Devi and Others v. The State of Bihar and Others, reported in 2014 (3) PLJR 584 , Rajendra Prasad v. The State of Bihar and Others, reported in 2007 (Supp.) PLJR 272, and Vijay Kumar Prasad v. The State of Bihar and Others, reported in 2017 (1) PLJR 818 . 5. Learned Counsel further submits that the vendors of private respondents have got no right, title and interest because they were heirs of bataidar and, therefore, sale deed executed in favour of private respondents is not valid. He next submits that the private respondents, instead of seeking mutation, have filed a case for correction of jamabandi. There is difference between mutation and correction of jamabandi having different connotation and the three authorities have cancelled the jamabandi of the petitioner on the ground that no document regarding the creation of jamabandi in favour of the petitioner was brought on record by the petitioner. He, referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents-State, submits that the State, in paragraph 4 of its counter affidavit, has specifically stated that in the year 1954-55, a rent fixation proceeding, vide Rent Fixation Case No. 50 of 1954- 55, was initiated by the Circle Officer, Surajgarha, at the instance of one Jhari Das, with respect to the land of mouza Srighana, bearing khata no. 79, khesra no. 702, area 49 decimals, khesra 711, area 39 decimals, khat6a no. 91, khesra no. 710 area 65 decimals (total area being 1.53 acres) and accordingly Jamabandi No. 364 was created in the name of Jhari Das in Revenue Register-II of the State of Bihar and since then, he is paying rent to the State of Bihar. 79, khesra no. 702, area 49 decimals, khesra 711, area 39 decimals, khat6a no. 91, khesra no. 710 area 65 decimals (total area being 1.53 acres) and accordingly Jamabandi No. 364 was created in the name of Jhari Das in Revenue Register-II of the State of Bihar and since then, he is paying rent to the State of Bihar. A copy of the Revenue Register – II showing creation of Jamabandi No. 364 has also been annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 4 submits that no oral sale took place with regard to the subject land and the petitioner never came in possession over the land. The respondent no. 4 is paying rent to the State of Bihar and Jamabandi No. 762 has been created in the name of respondent no. 4. Land possession certificate has also been issued in her favour by the authorities; whereas no chit of paper has been produced by the petitioner regarding Rent Fixation Case No. 50 of 1954-55 nor any paper regarding creation of jamabandi no. 364 has been produced by the petitioner. He also submits that respondent nos. 4 to 6 have not purchased the land from the heirs of bataidar, as contended by the petitioner; rather, the same has been purchased from the heirs of the khatiyani raiyat. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned. 8. The main question involved in this case is as to whether long standing jamabandi, created in the year 1954-55, can be cancelled or corrected by the revenue authorities. 9. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents-State, it transpires that the respondents-State has accepted that Rent Fixation Case No. 50 of 1954-55 was initiated at the instance of the father of the petitioner and Jamabandi No. 364 was created in his favour and in support of the submission, copy of the Revenue Register – II showing creation of Jamabandi No. 364 has been annexed by the respondents-State in its counter affidavit. From perusal of the same, it appears that the contention of the petitioner that jamabandi was created in his favour in the year 1954-55 appears to be correct. There is no allegation either in the counter affidavit filed by the State or the private respondent that this jamabandi was obtained by the petitioner by playing fraud. 10. From perusal of the same, it appears that the contention of the petitioner that jamabandi was created in his favour in the year 1954-55 appears to be correct. There is no allegation either in the counter affidavit filed by the State or the private respondent that this jamabandi was obtained by the petitioner by playing fraud. 10. This Court, in the cases of Vijay Kumar Prasad (supra) and Maya Devi (supra), has held that long standing jamabandi can only be cancelled by the civil court. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, on the fact as well as on law, and the fact that jamabandi was created in favour of the petitioner way back in the year 1954-55 and continued for a long period of time, the order, dated 20.12.2017, passed by the Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna, in B.L.T. Case No. 289 of 2017, whereby the Tribunal has affirmed the order, dated 04.11.2016, passed by the Collector, Lakhisarai, in Jamabandi Correction Appeal Case No. 85 of 1990-91 (Munger)/14 of 1994-95 (Lakhisarai) and the order, dated 21.09.1990, passed by the D.C.L.R., Lakhisarai, in Jamabandi Correction Case No. 13 of 1984-85, is set aside. 12. The respondent nos. 4 to 6, if so advised, may file a suit against the petitioner for correction of jamabandi and/or declaration of title. 13. In the result, this writ application is allowed. 14. There shall be no order as to costs.