2025:JHHC:10940 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.7669 of 2023 ----- Prasadi Yadav, S/o Late Meghan Yadav, R/o Village- Chandedih, P.O.-Bekobar Utari, P.S.-Koderma, District- Koderma. .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma. 3. The Additional Collector, Koderma. 4. The Land Reform Deputy Collector, Koderma. 5. S.D.O., Koderma. 6. The Circle Officer, Jhumri Telaiya, Koderma. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Brijnandan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, AC to GP-I ----- Order No.06 Date: 09.04.2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 04.03.2023 passed by the respondent no.6- Circle Officer, Jhumri Telaiya, Koderma in Mutation Case No.4497 R27/2022-2023/Koderma Sadar, whereby the mutation case filed on behalf of the petitioner with respect to the land appertaining to Khata No.65, Plot No.1574, Mouza-Chandedih, Thana No.256, measuring an area of 36.8 decimals has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent no.6 to consider petitioner’s representation and thereafter to mutate the land in question which has been bonafidely purchased by him. 2. Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned A.C. to G.P.-I, appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner has 2025:JHHC:10940 2 efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring appeal before the respondent no.4 under Section 15 of Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 against the order dated 04.03.2023 passed by the respondent no.6 in Mutation Case No.4497 R27/2022-2023/Koderma Sadar. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that the petitioner has efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring appeal under Section 15 of Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 before the respondent no.4 against the order dated 04.03.2023 passed by the respondent no.6, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this stage. 4. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take statutory recourse of appeal against the order dated 04.03.2023 passed by the respondent no.6. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Vikas/