JUDGMENT : RAJESH KUMAR 1. The present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:- “A. Issuance of a writ of certiorari or in nature thereof for quashing/cancelling/rescinding -- I). The order dated 24-12-2022 passed by Respondent Dy. Commissioner, Ranchi in Mutation Revision Case No. 66 R 15/2018-19 (Annexure - 7), whereby he disposed of revision of the petitioner after holding that dispute of title is involved in this matter which can be settled in appropriate civil proceeding, but before that conclusion, he uphold/justified the order of mutation in favour of the Respondent No. 5 over land of Khewat No. 3, Khata No. 51 Plot No. 739 (area 55 decimals) and Plot No. 604 (area 13 decimal) = TOTAL AREA- 68 decimals, in village - Namkum, Thana No. 214, District - Ranchi (hereinafter to be referred as "the land involved in this case" only); II). The order dated 28-06-2018 passed by Respondent - Dy. Commissioner Land Reforms, Ranchi in Mutation Appeal Case No. 74 R 15/16-17 (Annexure-5), whereby he allowed mutation in favour of the Respondent No. -5 over the land involved in this case; B. Issuance of a writ of mandamus or in nature thereof commanding/directing/restraining the Respondents or their sub- ordinates or agents or staffs or assign from interfering with right, title and possession of the petitioner over the land involved in the case; AND/OR be pleased to issue any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s)/rule(s) in the facts and in the circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice.” 2. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the subject land was purchased in the year 1935 in execution of a decree, and since then the said land has remained in continuous possession of the petitioner’s ancestors and, thereafter, of the petitioner himself. Further, it has been submitted that Form “M” has been prepared in favour of the father of the petitioner and on that basis, he submits that the land belongs to him and the transfer mutation done in favour of the private respondent is bad in law. 3. An application by the Respondent No.5 has been made before the Circle Officer, Namkum for transfer of mutation and a proceeding has been initiated being Mutation Case No.574/2016-2017 but it has been rejected as objection has been raised by the petitioner. 3. An application by the Respondent No.5 has been made before the Circle Officer, Namkum for transfer of mutation and a proceeding has been initiated being Mutation Case No.574/2016-2017 but it has been rejected as objection has been raised by the petitioner. Thereafter an appeal has been preferred by the Respondent No.5 without impleading the petitioner before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ranchi numbered as Mutation Appeal Case No.74 R 15/16-17 which has also been objected by the petitioner but the said Mutation Appeal has been allowed vide order dated 28.06.2018 in favour of Respondent No.5. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.06.2018, the present petitioner had filed a revision being Mutation Revision Case No.66R15/2018-19 before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and the same has been disposed of vide order dated 24.12.2022. The relevant portion of the said order is quoted herein below:- 5. The law is settled that the transfer mutation authority has only to see whether there is existing mutation in the name of vendor/seller of the property or not and if there is existing mutation in the name of vendor/seller of the property then the Circle Officer has no other option but to transfer the mutation to the purchaser. If anybody makes any complain regarding the title of the property on the basis of one or another document then he is free to get it corrected through the Civil Court. Only on the basis of an order passed by a competent Civil Court transfer mutation can be interfered by the Circle Officer, otherwise he has no other option but to effect/transfer the mutation from the seller to the purchaser. 6. Thus, this court finds that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi is perfectly in accordance with law as the law operating in the field i.e. the Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. 7. In view of above discussion, I do not find any reason to entertain the present writ petition, accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.