ORDER : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to hold and declare that mundari khunt-kattidari land sold to a non-munda (i.e. Kisto Manjhi) in an auction sale vide Certificate Case No.76 of 1894 i.e. prior to coming into effect of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 is saleable in view of Section 240 (7) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 . 2. Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, learned A.C. to A.G., appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in fact, the petitioner had made an application seeking mutation of the khunt-kattidari land appertaining to Khata No.102, RS Khewat No.3, Village-Korda, P.S.-Bundu, Thana No.83, District-Ranchi measuring an area of 228.67 acres before the respondent no.3-Circle Officer, Bundu which was registered as Mutation Case No.786 of 2019-20. However, the said mutation case was rejected vide order dated 10 th June, 2020. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Bundu, which was registered as Mutation Appeal No.103 of 2020-21. The said appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 11 th August, 2023. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Revenue Revision Case No.140R15/23-24 before the respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. Though the said revision is still pending before the respondent no.2, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition without waiting for its disposal. 3. As against this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the said revision was preferred by the petitioner before the respondent no.2 on 12 th February, 2024, however, the same has not yet been disposed of by the said respondent. Under the said compelling circumstance, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that Revenue Revision Case No.140R15/23-24 preferred by the petitioner is still pending before the respondent no.2, the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be considered at this stage which otherwise will have any relevance after disposal of the aforesaid revision pending before the respondent no.2. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that Revenue Revision Case No.140R15/23-24 preferred by the petitioner is still pending before the respondent no.2, the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be considered at this stage which otherwise will have any relevance after disposal of the aforesaid revision pending before the respondent no.2. However, keeping in view the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the said revision is pending before the respondent no.2 for more than a year, the respondent no.2 is directed to expedite the hearing of the said revision and to dispose of the same in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties without further delay preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 5. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.