JUDGMENT : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 03.06.2022 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.3 in R.M.R. Case No. 09 of 2019-20 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner’s father has been dismissed. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 22.08.2019 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.4 in Mutation Appeal Case No. 11 of 2008-09 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner’s father has been dismissed upholding the order dated 24.12.2007 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.5 in Mutation Case No. 399/2007-08. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 24.12.2007 passed by the respondent No.5 in Mutation Case No. 399 of 2007-08 whereby the order for mutation of the name of the respondent No.6 in place of the erstwhile existing raiyat with respect to the land situated at Mouza-Madanshahi Tapuwa, Thana No. 13, Jamabandi No. 496/886, measuring total area of 1 Kattha 12 Dhurs was passed. It is further prayed for directing the respondent-State to remove all the entries made in the revenue register pursuant to mutation of the said land in the name of the respondent No. 6. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said land was purchased by Late Satyanarayan Sah from one Jayram Das Kinnara vide registered sale deed No. 3955 dated 04.06.1982. Thereafter, the Jamabandi of the said land was created in the name of Late Satyanarayan Sah and the rent receipts were issued for the same in his name till the revenue year 2005- 2006. Satyanarayan Sah died leaving behind his two sons, namely, Narsingh Prasad Sah (the father of the petitioner) and Omprakash Sah. 3. It came to the notice of the petitioner’s father that the said land was sold by Om Prakash Sah to one Rajesh Kumar Sah (the respondent No.6 herein) vide registered sale deed Nos. 3120 & 3121 dated 27.06.2007, which was subsequently mutated in his name in terms with the order dated 24.12.2007 passed by the respondent No.5 in Mutation Case No. 399 of 2007-08 without issuing any notice to the petitioner’s father calling for objection in the said mutation proceeding. 4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner’s father filed Mutation Appeal Case No. 11 of 2008-09 before the respondent No.4, which was kept pending for a decade. 4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner’s father filed Mutation Appeal Case No. 11 of 2008-09 before the respondent No.4, which was kept pending for a decade. In the meantime, the petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the office of the Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj as to what action was taken pursuant to the application dated 13.09.2010 filed by his father for making enquiry from all the people mentioned in the notice issued by the respondent No.5 to 16 Anna Raiyats in connection with Mutation Case No. 399 of 2007-08 as to whether their signatures giving no objection were forged or they had actually put their signatures on the same. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the required information was provided to the petitioner vide Memo No. 3143 dated 29.12.2011 enclosing therewith a copy of the enquiry report dated 15.10.2010 submitted by the Police Inspector, Nagar Prabhag, Sahibganj wherein it was stated that all the persons, whose signatures were found on the notice, had unequivocally averred that their signatures were forged. Thereafter, an FIR being Sahebganj (T) P.S. Case No. 61/12 was lodged by the petitioner against the then Revenue Karamchari and the respondent No.6 in which during the trial, all the prosecution witnesses stated on oath that their signatures relating to no objection as mentioned in the notice of Mutation Case No. 399 of 2007-2008 issued from the circle office were forged as they had not put their signatures on the said notice. However, Mutation Appeal Case No. 11 of 2008-09 was dismissed by the respondent No.4 in terms with the order dated 22.08.2019. Aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner’s father filed the revision being R.M.R. Case No. 09/2019-20 in the Court of the respondent No.3, however, the same was also dismissed in terms with the order dated 03.06.2022. Subsequently, the petitioner’s father died on 20.08.2022 and Om Prakash Sah also died sometime back. 6. It is further submitted that the sale of the said land by Om Prakash Sah was not valid as he was not the Jamabandi raiyat and there was nothing on record to suggest that he was the absolute owner of the said land after death of the Jamabandi raiyat, namely, Satyanarayan Sah. 6. It is further submitted that the sale of the said land by Om Prakash Sah was not valid as he was not the Jamabandi raiyat and there was nothing on record to suggest that he was the absolute owner of the said land after death of the Jamabandi raiyat, namely, Satyanarayan Sah. Though the petitioner’s father was a necessary party in the said mutation proceeding, however, no notice was issued to him before passing the order dated 24.12.2007 regarding mutation of the land in question in favour of the respondent No.6. A report dated 19.12.2007 was submitted in the mutation proceeding stating that there was no objection from anyone, which created serious doubt as the notice itself was issued on 10.12.2007 and only after 9 days, such report was submitted. 7. It is also argued that the mutation can only be allowed on the basis of possession and the respondents are precluded from going into the issue of right, title and interest of the concerned parties. However, in the instant case, a false and fabricated report was prepared with a view to illegally create the Jamabandi of the said land stating that the concerned raiyats had put their signatures on the notice which suggested that no one had any adverse claim or objection. However, on enquiry made by the police, it was proved that all the signatures showing no objection were forged and the report itself was fabricated. The said land is still in possession of the petitioner and no third party right could have been created without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner’s father in the mutation proceeding. 8. It is further contended that the partition alleged to have taken place between Narsingh Prasad Sah and Om Prakash Sah by way of a partition deed is neither within the knowledge of the petitioner nor it was known to the petitioner’s father and thus it can safely be assumed that the partition deed was also forged and fabricated. Moreover, the provisions of Sections 12 & 14 of the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1973’] have been ignored by the authorities while creating the Jamabandi in favour of the respondent No.6 and as such the impugned orders are not only factually incorrect, but also arbitrary and illegal. 9. Moreover, the provisions of Sections 12 & 14 of the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1973’] have been ignored by the authorities while creating the Jamabandi in favour of the respondent No.6 and as such the impugned orders are not only factually incorrect, but also arbitrary and illegal. 9. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the property of Satnarayan Sah was partitioned by way of Panchnama Deed dated 30.05.1989 and the said land came in the share of his younger son, Om Prakash Sah, who sold the same to the respondent No.6 and as such there is nothing wrong in the impugned orders passed by the respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 so as to warrant any interference of this Court. On the one hand, the petitioner has failed to challenge the sale deed executed by Om Prakash Sah in favour of the respondent No.6, on the other hand, he has challenged the opening of Jamabandi of the said land in his favour, which has rightly rejected by the impugned orders. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. Thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Satnarayan Sah was the owner of the said land and after his death, the petitioner’s father, namely, Narsingh Prasad Sah and Om Prakash Sah came to be the joint owners of the same. However, the Jamabandi of the said land was opened in the name of the respondent No.6 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner’s father. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also denied execution of Panchnama Partition Deed dated 30.05.1989, as heavily relied by the respondent Nos. 4 & 3 while passing the impugned orders dated 22.08.2019 & 03.06.2022 respectively. 11. Though the petitioner has doubted execution of Panchnama Partition Deed dated 30.05.1989 before this Court, on bare perusal of the impugned order dated 03.06.2022 passed by the respondent No.3, it would be evident that while hearing of the revision petition being R.M.R Case No. 09 of 2019-20, the petitioner’s father had not disputed the said partition deed, rather by referring Para 4 of the same, he had claimed his pre-emption right to purchase the said land and thus the petitioner before this Court has deviated from his father’s statement made before the respondent No.3. Nonetheless, the factual plea raised by the petitioner can effectively be made before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction. 12. It is an admitted fact that the sale deed of the said land was executed by Om Prakash Sah in favour of the respondent No.6. Though, the petitioner has challenged the opening of the Jamabandi of the said land in the name of the respondent No.6, it has not been averred by him that the said sale deed has been declared null and void by any competent Court of law. 13. The petitioner is claiming possession over the said land, however, the enquiry report submitted by the Revenue Karamchari in mutation proceeding initiated vide Mutation Case No. 399 of 2007-08 reveals that the respondent No. 6 is in possession of the said land and on the basis of the said report, the mutation of the said land was allowed in favour of the respondent No.6. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot decide such disputed question of fact in absence of any specific evidence adduced by the petitioner with regard to possession. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has put much reliance on the letter of the Police Inspector, Nagar Prabhag, Sahibganj issued vide memo no. 497/10 dated 15.10.2010 wherein it was written that all the persons whose signatures were found on the notice inviting objection in the said mutation proceeding, had told him that they had not put their signatures on the same. I am of the view that the said document cannot be said to be a conclusive piece of evidence, rather the veracity of the same is required to be tested before the competent court of law. The said letter of the Police Inspector is not a such piece of document on the basis of which the entire mutation proceeding can be said to have vitiated. Though the petitioner has claimed that in the criminal case lodged by him, all the persons, whose signatures were found on the notice issued in Mutation Case No. 399/2007-08, had stated during the trial that they had not put their signatures on the same, however, he has failed to bring on record the statements of those persons. 15. Though the petitioner has claimed that in the criminal case lodged by him, all the persons, whose signatures were found on the notice issued in Mutation Case No. 399/2007-08, had stated during the trial that they had not put their signatures on the same, however, he has failed to bring on record the statements of those persons. 15. The other limb of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no personal notice was issued to the petitioner’s father before passing the order of mutation in favour of the respondent no. 6. I have perused section 14 of the Act, 1973 which mandates that the Circle Officer while considering an application of a person for mutation of the land, is required to issue a general notice as also notice to the parties concerned inviting objection and thereafter on providing due opportunity of hearing to the parties to adduce evidence, if any, to dispose of the objection and to pass appropriate order. Thus, there was no requirement to issue personal notice to the petitioner before passing the order of mutation in favour of the respondent no. 6 that too when the vendor of the respondent no. 6 had claimed that the said land came in his share in view of Panchnama Partition dated 30.05.1989. 16. Furthermore, in the case of Municipal Corpn., Aurangabad through its Commissioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2015) 16 SCC 689 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that mutation does not confer any right and title in favour of any one or other as well as cancellation of mutation does not extinguish 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. 17. In the case of Mahabir Mahto & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2012 SCC OnLineJhar 1290 , learned Division Bench of this Court has held that the mutation proceedings have limited scope so far as its effect is concerned. 17. In the case of Mahabir Mahto & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2012 SCC OnLineJhar 1290 , learned Division Bench of this Court has held that the mutation proceedings have limited scope so far as its effect is concerned. The purpose of mutation proceeding is very clear from the Act, 1973 itself, which substantially suggests that these are the proceedings to primarily safeguard the interest of the State so as to enable it to know the persons' right over the agricultural land and once the names are entered in the revenue record, those can be altered only for the reasons mentioned in Sections 3 to 13 of the Act, 1973. The provisions of the Act, 1973 are not meant for getting a declaration in seriously disputed cases of the entitlement over the land. It has further been held that the ‘Anchal Adhikari’ has also no power and jurisdiction to pass a decree or order of declaration pertaining to right, title or interest in the property or has no right to declare about legality and validity of an instrument of transfer or a settlement or to decide the issue of contentious succession cases, the power of which vests in Civil Courts under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act. If in a mutation proceeding, there is serious dispute with respect to the claims and rival claims even amongst the successors of the recorded person, then they may be directed to file an appropriate suit. Even if procedure required to be followed for mutation has not been strictly followed by the revenue authorities, the High Court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 and the remedy lies in filing a civil suit before a competent Civil Court for obtaining appropriate relief. 18. It is thus well settled that a mutation proceeding has very limited scope. Mutation entries are made only to enable the State to collect revenues of any land from the persons in its possession and it neither confers nor extinguishes the title over the same. The right, title and interest over a property should be established de hors the entries made in the revenue record. 19. Mutation entries are made only to enable the State to collect revenues of any land from the persons in its possession and it neither confers nor extinguishes the title over the same. The right, title and interest over a property should be established de hors the entries made in the revenue record. 19. In the present case, the petitioner is claiming his right, title and interest over the said land being successor of the Jamabandi raiyat-Satyanarayan Sah which has been transferred by his uncle-Om Prakash Sah to the respondent No.6. As such, this Court is of the view that the said dispute cannot effectively be adjudicated in the mutation proceeding, rather the petitioner should move the competent Court of civil jurisdiction seeking annulment of the registered sale deed executed by Om Prakash Sah in favour of the respondent No.6 and other related issues. 20. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move the competent Court of civil jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance.