IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1951 of 2017 Rambadan Prasad Singh Son of Late Jharilal Prasad Singh, Resident of Village- Icharua, P.O.- Amba, P.S.- Alauli, District- Khagaria. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector, Khagaria. 3. The Additional Collector, Khagaria. 4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reform, Khagaria. 5. The Circle Officer, Anchal- Alauli, District- Khagaria. 6. The Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna. 7. Most. Sanichari Devi, wife of Late Lalit Mahto, Resident of Village- Icharua, P.O.- Amba, P.S.- Alauli, District- Khagaria. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Chandan Kumar Kashyap For the Respondent/s : Mr.Md.Khurshid Alam-Aag12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 9 11-02-2025 Heard the parties. 2. The writ petitioner has been filed for the following relief:- “For issuance of a Writs/orders/directions for quashing the order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Learned Bihar Land Tribunal (BLT), Patna in BLT Case No. 1216 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the order of the Respondent no. 4 (DCLR) and the order of Respondent No. Patna High Court CWJC No.1951 of 2017(9) dt.11-02-2025 2/4 3(Additional Collector) are illegally and arbitrarily set aside and the illegal order of the Respondent no. 5 (C.O.) has been confirmed.” 3. The brief facts of the case is that respondent no. 7 Most. Sanichari Devi @ Lalita Devi, wife of late Lalit Mahto filed an application for mutation of her name on half share in Khata no. 218, Khesra no. 1764, area 1 Bigha 16 Kattha 15 dhur i.e. 36 ½ kattha, situated at Mauza Anandpur Maran. The case of the applicant (respondent no. 7) was that her husband late Lalit Mahto and late Ramroop Mahto were own brothers and they were in joint possession of Khata no. 218, Khesra no. 1764, area 1 Bigha 16 Kattha 15 dhur in total. Late Lalit Mahto and Ramroop Mahto orally partitioned their shares and the share of the respondent no. 7 in the above-noted land is 36 ½ Katthas. Sons of Ramroop Mahto have already alienated their properties. The circle Officer, Alauli allowed the Mutation Case No. 662/2013-14 filed by the respondent no. 7, vide order dated 16.08.2013.. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.08.2013 passed by the Circle Officer, Alauli, the petitioner, who is lineal descendants of late Ramrrop Mahto, filed Mutation Appeal No. 56/2013-14, which was allowed and the order of Circle Officer Patna High Court CWJC No.1951 of 2017(9) dt.11-02-2025 3/4 was set aside. The order dated 27.06.2015 of the DCLR was affirmed by the Additional Collector, Khagria in Mutation Revision Case No. 03/2015-16, against which Most. Sanichari Devi @ Lalita Devi (respondent no. 7) filed BLT Case No. 1216 of 2015, which was allowed by the learned Member, Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna vide the impugned order dated 29.11.2016. 5. Perusal of the impugned order shows that both the sons of late Ramroop Mahto have already alienated their shares in the above-noted plot through 2 sale deeds and respondent no. 7 has been shown as a boundary raiyait in those sale deeds. As such, it is an admitted fact that respondent no. 7 is admitted boundary raiyait of the land, which fell into the share of Ramswaroop Mahto and was sold out later on. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention towards the format of the mutation application and submitted that the proforma of application for mutation was relating to the mutation on the basis of sale deeds, whereas the present case has been filed on the ground of succession. In my view, this is nothing but a technical mistake. 7. I do not find any error in the order of the learned Member, Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna whereby he has set aside the order of DCLR dated 30.01.2015 and the order of the Patna High Court CWJC No.1951 of 2017(9) dt.11-02-2025 4/4 Additional Collector dated 27.06.2015 and upheld the order of the Circle Officer dated 16.08.2013. 8. In do not find merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. HR/- (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) U