JUDGMENT : Rajesh Shankar, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 11.01.2024 passed in W.P. (C) No.2493 of 2007 whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent no. 7 and has directed the Circle Officer, Ratu Circle, Ranchi (respondent no. 4) to issue rent receipts in his favour on payment of rent with respect to the land admeasuring 0.46 acre in Plot No.65, Khata No.30, Khewat No. 2, Mauza - Lalgutuwa, P.S. Ratu, Ranchi (hereinafter referred as the said land). 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said land was purchased by the mother of the writ petitioner namely Devkali Devi from one Lodhar Lohar by way of registered sale deed no. 5944 dated 09.09.1963. Mutation of the said land was also done in favour of Devkali Devi vide Mutation Case No.26 R 27/1963-64 and rent receipts were also issued in her favour, however, the area transferred to Devkali Devi was not subtracted from the area recorded in the original khata of the recorded tenants. 3. It is further submitted that the said land was also sold by all the legal heirs of the recorded tenants i.e., Jatu Lohar and 25 others to the appellant and one Hiralal Tiwary by way of registered sale deed no. 11392 dated 15.12.2000. The said land was mutated in the name of the appellant and another purchaser vide Mutation Case No.397 R 27/2001-02 and they started paying rent of the same. 4. It is also submitted that the father of the writ petitioner/respondent no. 7 filed an application before the respondent no. 4 on 24.06.2003 stating that the rent receipt of the said land was still being issued in the name of the ex-owners/their legal heirs and requested to take necessary action as per law and the said application was registered as Misc. Case No. 3R8II/03-04. 5. The Revenue Karamchari/Circle Inspector submitted the report in the matter stating that one jamabandi for the said land was existing in the name of Devkali Devi and second jamabandi was existing in the name of the appellant. It was further reported that the appellant was in possession of the said land. The respondent no. Case No. 3R8II/03-04. 5. The Revenue Karamchari/Circle Inspector submitted the report in the matter stating that one jamabandi for the said land was existing in the name of Devkali Devi and second jamabandi was existing in the name of the appellant. It was further reported that the appellant was in possession of the said land. The respondent no. 4, vide order dated 25.7.2003, suspended the issuance of rent receipts in the name of Devkali Devi till any order was passed by a competent court and sent the record of the case to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ranchi (the respondent no. 3). The respondent no. 3 however remitted the matter to the respondent no. 4 and thereafter the matter was reheard by him, but once again vide order dated 15.7.2004, issued a direction to stop issuance of rent receipts in the name of Devkali Devi till an order was received by a competent court and sent the record of the case to the respondent no. 3. 6. The respondent no. 3, vide order dated 17.06.2006, dropped the proceeding of Misc. Case No. 3R8II/03-04 on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to declare right and title of the said land and granted liberty to the writ petitioner to move before the competent court on the issue of declaration of title. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioner filed an appeal vide Misc. Appeal No. 13R15/2006-07 before the Additional Collector, Ranchi (respondent no. 2), however the said appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 02.03.2007. The writ petitioner, then filed writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2493 of 2007 which was allowed vide impugned judgement/order dated 11.01.2024 and the Respondent No. 4 was directed to issue rent receipts with respect to the said land in favour of the writ petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that though the sale deed in favour of the mother of the writ petitioner namely Devkali Devi was executed earlier, the question of mutation depends on the factum of possession and on this count, the claim of the appellant for mutation prevails over Devkali Devi's claim. Moreover, the said land was recorded in the name of three persons i.e Lodhar Lohar, Gandaur Lohar and Lodhwa @ Lodha Lohar and out of the said three recorded tenants, Lodhwa @ Lodha Lohar died issueless. Moreover, the said land was recorded in the name of three persons i.e Lodhar Lohar, Gandaur Lohar and Lodhwa @ Lodha Lohar and out of the said three recorded tenants, Lodhwa @ Lodha Lohar died issueless. The mother of the writ petitioner had purchased the said land only from one of the recorded tenants i.e. Lodhar Lohar whereas the appellant along with Hira Lal Tiwari had purchased the said land from the legal heirs of Lodhar Lohar and Gandaur Lohar. 8. It is also urged that jamabandi in the name of the appellant was opened keeping in view non-subtraction of the area of land transferred to the writ petitioner’s mother from the area recorded in the original Khata of the recorded tenants and the subsequent transfer made in favour of the appellant was complete since the same was made by all the legal heirs of Lodhar Lohar and Gandaur Lohar. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that title of a jointly owned property cannot be absolute and perfect at the instance of only one of the co-sharers. The learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order dated 11.01.2024, has put much reliance on Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, however the same applies in a case where a property is transferred by a person at different point of time to two different persons and in such case the, precedence is to be given to the prior transfer, whereas in the present case, the first transfer made to Devkali Devi was only by one of the co-sharers namely Lodhar Lohar whereas the subsequent transfer was made in favour of the appellant by all the legal heirs of the recorded tenants. Therefore, the transfer made in favour of the appellant was complete and absolute. 10. It is also submitted that though Gandaur Lohar was a witness in the sale deed executed in favour of Devkali Devi, it cannot be presumed that Gandaur Lohar had also transferred his share to Devkali Devi. The learned Single Judge has committed an error in ignoring the settled proposition of law that a writ court cannot decide title of a property in favour of one party that too with respect to a mutation proceeding. 11. The learned Single Judge has committed an error in ignoring the settled proposition of law that a writ court cannot decide title of a property in favour of one party that too with respect to a mutation proceeding. 11. It is lastly contended that the appellant has already sold the said land and as such the learned Single Judge should not have recorded finding with respect to the title of the land prejudicial to the interest of the transferees of the land without arraying them in the writ proceeding. The learned Single Judge has also failed to appreciate that the question of title was not an issue in the writ proceeding, rather the limited issue was for cancellation of mutation and since the appellant was in possession of the said land, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. 12. On the contrary, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent no. 7 submits that despite mutation of the land in the name of the mother of the writ petitioner/respondent no. 7, the same land was sold by the legal heirs and descendants of Gandaur Lohar and Lodhar Lohar on 15.12.2000 in favour of the appellant and one Hiralal Tiwary and consequently two jamabandi were created for the said land; one in the name of Devkali Devi and another in the name of the appellant. 13. It is further submitted that the order of mutation in favour of the appellant and said Hiralal Tiwary was illegal as the jamabandi of the said land was already running in the name of Devkali Devi and the same was also in her physical possession as well as she was paying rent to the State. 14. It is also submitted that there is a recital in the sale deed executed in favour of the appellant and one Hiralal Tiwary on 15.12.2000 regarding entry of the fact in the Khatiyan that the said land was in the possession of Lodhar Lohar from whom the mother of the writ petitioner/respondent no. 7 had purchased the said land. 15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 16. 7 had purchased the said land. 15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 16. Thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has purchased the said land by way of registered sale deed from all the legal heirs of the recorded tenants and he is in possession of the same which is a condition precedent for opening of jamabandi. As such, the respondent no. 4 had rightly ordered to stop issuing rent receipt in favour of the writ petitioner (the respondent no. 7 herein) which was not interfered by the respondent no. 3 and 2. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order dated 11.01.2024 has committed serious error in entering into the question of title of the land in the matter of mutation proceeding observing that subsequent sale of the said land did not transfer its title. 17. We have perused the impugned judgment dated 11.01.2024 wherein the learned Single Judge has observed that Lodhar Lohar had executed the sale deed in favour of the writ petitioner’s mother in the year 1963 which was witnessed by Gandaur Lohar. It has further been observed that the title of the said land passed on in favour of the purchaser in the year 1963 and thereafter the land was mutated in her name and she started paying rent to the State. 18. The learned Single Judge has put reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kaliaperumal vs. Rajagopal , (2009) 4 SCC 193 wherein it has been held that normally, ownership and title of the property passes to the purchaser on registration of the sale deed with effect from the date of execution of the sale deed. 19. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgement, has also referred section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which provides priority of rights created by transfer. The said Section states - “where a person purports to create by transfer at different times rights in or over the same immoveable property, and such rights cannot all exist or be exercised to their full extent together, each later created right shall, in the absence of a special contract or reservation binding the earlier transferees, be subject to the rights previously created”. It has finally been observed by the learned Single Judge that the subsequent sale of the property did not transfer any title over the land in question and as such opening of parallel jamabandi was illegal. 20. The appellant has not disputed transfer of the said land vide registered sale deed dated 09.09.1963 executed by one of the recorded tenants namely Lodhar Lohar in favour of the writ petitioner’s mother. He has also not challenged the mutation of the same vide Mutation Case No. 26R27 of 1963-64 and issuance of rent receipts in her favour. 21. The title of the said land was transferred in favour of the writ petitioner’s mother in the year 1963 itself and the said transfer was never challenged by any person including the other recorded tenants before any competent court of law. However, due to mistake of the revenue authorities, the area of the land transferred in favour of the writ petitioner’s mother was not subtracted from the original Khata of the recorded tenant and the legal heirs of the recorded tenants including the sons of Lodhar Lohar taking advantage of the said lapse, sold the said land again to the appellant on the basis of which a parallel jamabandi was created in his favour. 22. In view of Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, if a vendor executes two sale deeds for the same property, the first executed deed takes precedence. The second deed is generally considered void, and the second purchaser cannot claim right over the property on the basis of the second sale deed. In the present case, since the title of the said land had already passed in favour of the writ petitioner’s mother in the year 1963 itself, subsequent transfer of the same to the appellant by way of sale deed dated 15.12.2000 was void ab-initio and the appellant cannot deserve valid title over the same. 23. We do not find any substance in the claim of the appellant that the sale deed executed in favour of the writ petitioner’s mother was defective on the ground of being not executed by all the recorded tenants particularly keeping in view that the sale deed executed in favour of the writ petitioner’s mother has not been declared void by any competent court of law and the said sale deed is still valid and effective. Moreover, it was stated in the sale deed dated 15.12.2000 executed in favour of the appellant that the said land was in possession of Lodhar Lohar from whom the writ petitioner’s mother had purchased the same. Otherwise also, out of the three recorded tenants, Lodhwa @ Lodha Lohar had died issueless and another surviving recorded tenant namely Gandaur Lohar had appeared as witness in the said sale deed which reflected that he had given his consent in execution of the said sale deed by Lodhar Lohar. 24. In the case of Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango Vs. Narayan Devji Kango & Others, (1954) 1 SCC 544 , it has been held that proof of the existence of a Hindu joint family does not lead to a presumption that a property held by any member of the family is joint and the burden to establish the fact rests upon the one who asserts that any item of property was joint. Thus, on the mere fact that the said land was recorded in the name of Lodhar Lohar, Gandaur Lohar and Lodhwa @ Lotha Lohar does not ipso facto raise presumption of jointness of property and the burden of proof was upon the appellant as well as the other recorded tenant to establish that the property was joint. 25. Jamabandi is created under the provisions of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 wherein no such power has been conferred to any authority of the State to cancel the jamabandi and in absence of any such power conferred by statute upon the revenue authorities, the jamabandi cannot be cancelled. If a revenue authority takes a decision in absence of any such provision in the statute, the same will be nullity in the eye of law being without jurisdiction. Moreover, long running jamabandi cannot be got cancelled, except by filing a suit before the competent court of civil jurisdiction. In the present case, a parallel jamabandi created in favour of the appellant was a serious lapse on the part of the revenue authorities and the writ petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the same. 26. On bare perusal of the orders passed by the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4, it appears that the respondent no. 4 directed to stop issuance of rent receipt in favour of the writ petitioner’s mother which was not interfered by the respondent nos. 3 and 2. 26. On bare perusal of the orders passed by the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4, it appears that the respondent no. 4 directed to stop issuance of rent receipt in favour of the writ petitioner’s mother which was not interfered by the respondent nos. 3 and 2. It was observed by the respondent nos. 2 to 4 that title of the said land could not be decided by the revenue courts but by a competent civil court. 27. Another argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is in possession of the said land which is a primary requirement for opening of jamabandi and as such the respondent no. 4 had rightly passed the order in favour of the appellant stopping issuance of rent receipt to the writ petitioner’s mother. 28. It is well settled principle of law that mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor it has any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered, to pay the land revenue in question. Since the execution of the sale deed as well as opening of parallel jamabandi in favour of the appellant was itself void, the respondent no. 4 was not right in directing to stop the issuance of rent receipt in favour of the writ petitioner’s mother which was not interfered by the respondent nos. 3 and 2. The said respondents were also not right in directing the writ petitioner to take recourse before the competent court seeking declaration of his right, title and interest as he had clear right, title and interest over the said land. Thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner/respondent no.7. 29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the order dated 11.01.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.2493 of 2007. The present appeal deserves to be dismissed with cost. The appellant is directed to pay cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the writ petitioner/respondent no. 7 within six weeks since he has been unnecessarily dragged in litigation. 30. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 31. I.A No. 9844 of 2024 is also disposed of accordingly.