JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J. I.A. No. 2179 of 2024 1. The instant application has been filed for condonation of delay of 173 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the wife of the appellant namelym Adba Khatoonm was not well and she became seriously ill in the month of July, 2023. On 7th August, 2023 she was admitted in hospital on complaint of enteric fever with UTI and was discharged on 9th August, 2023. The appellant was engaged in looking after her wife. Therefore, in the month of January, 2024 the appellant contacted his counsel, who asked him to come Ranchi to prefer appeal. Whereafter, the appellant came to Ranchi on 30.01.2024 and handed over the relevant document including vakalatnama. 4. Further, the appellant is 82 years old person and has undergone cataract surgery in the month of January, 2023 and because of illness of his wife he could not file appeal in time. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents though raised objection on the delay condonation application but there is no rebuttal affidavit on behalf of respondents. 6. In view of reason assigned in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 7. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2179 of 2024 stands disposed of. L.P.A. No. 108 of 2024 8. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against order/judgment dated 05.07.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 2340 of 2022, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed by making an observation that appropriate forum for adjudication of the grievance is competent Court of civil jurisdiction. 9. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, being assisted by Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by respondents-authorities particularly, the Commissioner ought to have been quashed and set aside by the learned Single Judge but while dismissing the writ petition and making observation therein that the appropriate forum for adjudication of the grievance is competent Court of civil jurisdiction and while doing so by granting such liberty will highly prejudice the case of the writ petitioner in the trial before the Civil Court. 10. Mr. 10. Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, learned AC to AAG II appearing for the respondents-State has submitted that the aforesaid aspect of the matter has well been considered by the learned Single Judge wherein an observation has been made at paragraph 20 regarding the settled position of law that the order passed by the revenue authority cannot decide the title of the party in respect of property. 11. This Court, on consideration of the argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the parties, and considering the factual aspect as has been referred by learned Single Judge in the impugned order, is of the view that the question of title and interest, subject matter of instant case, requires adjudication and in such circumstances, the learned Single Judge without interfering with the order impugned granted liberty to the writ petitioners/private respondents to approach the competent Court of civil jurisdiction, which cannot be said to suffer from an error. 12. The fact about evidentiary value of the revenue authority is not res integra since the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that creation of mutation or order passed by the revenue authority does not create right or title of the party concerned. 13. The position of law is well settled that the mutation does not create or extinguish right in favour of any party. It is simply an evidence of possession over the land. It is also settled position of law that besides title, mutation is an evidence of possession and therefore, even if a person has got a title that shall not be deemed to be the evidence of possession unless mutation is done and rent receipts are issued in favour of the one or the other, as has been held by this Court in the judgment rendered in Chotanagpur Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand [ (2006) 1 JCR 80 (Jhr)] in particular paragraph 6, which reads as under : “6. It is well settled that besides title, mutation is an evidence of possession and therefore even if a person has got a title that shall not be deemed to be the evidence of possession unless mutation is clone and rent receipts are issued in favour of the owner of the building. 14. Reference in this regard further be made to the recent judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Jitendra Singh Vs. 14. Reference in this regard further be made to the recent judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. [(2021) SCC OnLine SC 802], wherein the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to hold that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. 15. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph 7 of the judgment is quoted as under : “7. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137 , this Court had an occasion to consider the effect of mutation and it is observed and held that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar view has been expressed in the series of decisions thereafter.” 16. This Court, therefore, is of the view that while dismissing the writ petition liberty to approach before the competent court of civil jurisdiction has been granted by making an observation that the order passed by the revenue authority does not decide the title of the parties with respect to property, already takes care of the aforesaid apprehension of the petitioner. 17. In view thereof, the instant intra-court appeal needs no interference and is dismissed.