JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents-State and learned counsel appearing for the private respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 2. Prayer in this writ petition is made for quashing of the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla in Case No. 33/2022-23, in terms of which after restoring the mutation revision No. 18/2019-20, has dismissed the mutation revision case. Further prayer is made for quashing of the order dated 16.02.2019 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Gumla, in Case No. 59/2017-18 in terms of which the mutation appeal No. 59/2017-18 preferred by the private respondents, challenging the order of mutation in favour of the petitioner has been allowed. 3. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased the land in Mouza Arana, Khata No. 18, Plot No. 62 (admeasuring 0.26 Acre) & 64 (admeasuring 0.12 Acre) total area 0.38 Acre, vide deed No. 1577/1979 dated 17.07.1979. He submits that the petitioner remained in continuous possession over the said piece of land and enjoyed peaceful possession over the same. He further submits that the Circle Officer vide order dated 06.06.2017, allowed the mutation in favour of the petitioner. He then submits that the private respondents preferred a mutation appeal No. 59/2017-18 on 14.03.2018 against the order dated 06.06.2017. He submits that the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Gumla allowed the said mutation appeal No. 59/2017-18 in favour of the private respondents, against that the petitioner has preferred a revision before the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, which was registered as Mutation Revision No. 18 of 2019, which was dismissed on 19.10.2022. He submits that in the meantime, one proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated and the possession of the petitioner was found there. He further submits that the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have decided the right, title and interest, which is not under the domain of the revenue authorities. On these grounds, he submits that both the orders of the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority may kindly be quashed. 4. Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State submits that the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority has rightly passed the orders, as the dispute is there with regard to deed number. 5. Mr. 4. Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State submits that the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority has rightly passed the orders, as the dispute is there with regard to deed number. 5. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 submits that there is serious dispute with regard to the deed of the petitioner, which has been cut in the petition filed by the petitioner himself. He submits that the petitioner has obtained the information under the RTI Act, by which, he has been informed that the mutation was done on the basis of the deed No. 2784 dated 07.09.1967, which is in the name of Bisia Kharia, wherein the petitioner is Manu Prasad Sahu @ Manu Prasad. He further submits that the mutation is already running in the name of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and after 35 years, an application was filed by the petitioner for mutation, and thereafter the mutation was done in favour of the petitioner by the concerned Circle Officer. In view of the above, he submits that the disputed questions cannot be the subject matter of the writ petition and the petitioner is required to move before the competent court of civil jurisdiction. 6. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the court has gone through the materials available on record and finds that Annexure-1 of the writ petition is the ordersheet, by which, one mutation proceeding was initiated, where in the first page, it is clearly stated that the deed no. 2784 dated 17.07.1979, however, there is a cut mark and the deed number is rectified to deed No. 1577 and in the next page the deed number is said to 2784 dated 07.09.1967. Thus, in the order itself, it is contradiction of the deed number of the petitioner, which was challenged by the private respondent nos. 5 and 6 before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector by way of filing an appeal, which was decided by the order dated 16.02.2019 holding that on the basis of Deed No. 2784 dated 07.09.1967, the mutation was allowed, however, the deed was found to be defective. 5 and 6 before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector by way of filing an appeal, which was decided by the order dated 16.02.2019 holding that on the basis of Deed No. 2784 dated 07.09.1967, the mutation was allowed, however, the deed was found to be defective. The revisional authority has affirmed the order of the appellate authority saying that there is dispute with regard to deed itself and in view of that the appellate court order is correct. In the revisional order, it has also come that under the RTI Act, it was provided that the deed no. 2784 dated 07.09.1967, the mutation was allowed. In these backgrounds, the court finds that if such a dispute was there with regard to the deed itself, the appellate authority and the revisional authority have rightly passed those orders. 7. It is well settled that neither the authorities under the Tenancy Act nor the High Court could have entered into the question of ownership, title or inheritance in a proceeding of mutation and it is required to be decided the controversy limited to the mutation entry in the revenue records. It is further well settled that revenue records confer no title on the party and in the case of Suraj Bhan vs. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186 , it has been observed that such entries are relevant only for ‘fiscal purpose’ and substantive rights of title and of ownership of contesting claimants can be decided only by a competent civil court in appropriate proceedings. 8. What has been discussed hereinabove, it is clear from the record that the grievance of the petitioner is related to mutation entry only. If the authorities under the Tenancy Act felt that the action was in consonance with law, it could have retained the entry. The inquiry, however, was limited to the entry in the revenue records and nothing more. It had no bearing whatsoever as to the right of Ownership, inheritance or title to the property. There is no merit in this writ petition, as such, the same is dismissed. 9. However, it is open for the respective parties to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law in a competent civil court so far as substantive rights of ownership, title or inheritance are concerned.