JUDGMENT : SUDHIR SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 16329 of 2023, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellants came to be disposed of with liberty to avail appropriate remedy before the competent Civil Court. 3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are that pursuant to the order dated 05.09.2022 passed in CWJC No. 18397 of 2018, the District Magistrate was directed to dispose of the representation by a reasoned order. In compliance thereof, the Collector passed order dated 20.06.2023 holding that the land in question belonged to the State of Bihar and recommending cancellation of the Jamabandi created in favour of the appellants. The appellants contend that the land in question was recorded as Gairmajarua Khas and Bakastha under the possession of their ancestors, and that upon vesting they were entitled to be treated as settled raiyats. Aggrieved by the Collector’s order, they preferred CWJC No. 16329 of 2023, which came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge relegating them to the Civil Court. 4. The learned Writ Court, after hearing the parties, passed the following orders: “7. After hearing the parties and upon perusal of the order under challenge, it transpires to this Court that the order passed by the Collector is in three parts. In the first part, it has been decided by the Collector that in the present facts and circumstances, the question of title is involved for which only competent authority is the civil court, and therefore, in the opinion of the Court, the petitioners shall be at liberty to file a title suit for declaration of the title in their favour. 8. The second part is the principles of law decided and in the opinion of the Court, the said principle is also in favour of the petitioners whereas in the third part, it is mere recommendation to initiate the proceedings for cancellation of Jamabandi in accordance with law. This part of the order is absolutely lawful and there is no need of any interference in the opinion of the Court. 9. As such, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to avail remedy before the competent civil court. This part of the order is absolutely lawful and there is no need of any interference in the opinion of the Court. 9. As such, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to avail remedy before the competent civil court. So far as the question of cancellation of Jamabandi is concerned, petitioners shall be at liberty to file any appropriate petition before the competent civil court to get such relief or to contest the case as and when the occasion shall arise upon receiving notice in the Jamabandi cancellation proceeding. 10. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ application is hereby disposed of.” 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the condition precedent for invoking power under Section 9 of the Bihar Mutation Act has not been satisfied in the present case. It is further submitted that the authorities under the Act are creatures of statute and are tribunals of limited jurisdiction, obliged to act strictly within the four corners of the statute, and any action taken beyond the statutory framework is void ab initio. 6. Learned counsel further submits that a long-standing jamabandi cannot be cancelled in a summary proceeding by a Revenue Officer. In support of the said submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harendranath Tiwari vs. State of Bihar , reported in 1987 Supp SCC 56 ; Prithvi Nath Singh vs. Suraj Ahir , reported in AIR 1963 SC 1041 ; and further upon the judgment of this Court in Arun Kumar Goenka vs. State of Bihar & Ors ., reported in 2023 (5) BLJ 321 . 7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the land in question stood recorded as “Gairmajarua Khas” and was “Bakastha” land under actual physical possession of the ancestors of the appellants on the date of vesting and, therefore, they are entitled to be treated as settled raiyats under the State. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have adjudicated the matter on merits instead of relegating them to the Civil Court. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that once the learned Single Judge, after considering the nature of the dispute, relegated the appellants to avail remedy before the competent Civil Court, it cannot now be contended that the order is without merit. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that once the learned Single Judge, after considering the nature of the dispute, relegated the appellants to avail remedy before the competent Civil Court, it cannot now be contended that the order is without merit. The writ court has exercised its jurisdiction in accordance with settled principles that disputed questions of title and possession are not amenable to adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. It is submitted that granting liberty to approach the Civil Court does not amount to abdication of jurisdiction, therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference in appeal. 10. The limited issue that arises for consideration before this Court is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the appellants have been relegated to avail remedy before the competent Civil Court, suffers from any illegality, jurisdictional error or perversity so as to warrant interference in exercise of its intra court appellate jurisdiction. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, as also the materials brought on record. 12. At the outset, it is evident that the learned Single Judge has not dismissed the writ petition cursorily. The order reflects a structured and reasoned analysis of the Collector’s order in three distinct compartments. In the first part, the Collector recorded that the dispute essentially involves determination of title. The learned Single Judge concurred with this finding and observed that declaration of title falls exclusively within the domain of the competent Civil Court. This approach is firmly rooted in settled principles governing writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. In the second part, the learned Single Judge examined the legal principles referred to in the Collector’s order and expressly observed that the said principles were in favour of the petitioners. This clearly demonstrates that the learned Single Judge applied his judicial mind and did not mechanically affirm the administrative order. 14. In the third part, the Collector had merely recommended initiation of proceedings for cancellation of jamabandi in accordance with law. This clearly demonstrates that the learned Single Judge applied his judicial mind and did not mechanically affirm the administrative order. 14. In the third part, the Collector had merely recommended initiation of proceedings for cancellation of jamabandi in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge observed that such recommendation, being subject to statutory procedure and compliance with principles of natural justice, did not warrant interference at that stage. Significantly, liberty was granted to the petitioners to challenge such proceedings before the competent Civil Court or to contest the same upon receipt of notice. Thus, the rights of the appellants were adequately safeguarded. 15. We are unable to accept the submission of the appellants that the learned Single Judge abdicated jurisdiction. It is trite that writ courts do not ordinarily adjudicate disputed questions of title requiring examination of evidence, historical land records and possession. Relegation to the Civil Court in such circumstances is not refusal to exercise jurisdiction but a judicious exercise of discretion. 16. In the present case, the learned Single Judge has not decided the question of title against the appellants; rather, the parties have been relegated to the competent Civil Court for adjudication of such rights. This course of action is consistent with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. 17. The reliance placed by the appellants on Harendranath Tiwari , Prithvi Nath Singh , and Arun Kumar Goenka (supra) does not advance their case. The principle that mutation entries do not confer title and that title disputes are to be adjudicated by Civil Courts is not in dispute. In fact, the learned Single Judge has adopted a course consistent with that very principle by directing the parties to approach the Civil Court. The learned Single Judge has not upheld any summary cancellation; rather, it has been clarified that proceedings, if initiated, must be in accordance with law and subject to challenge before the appropriate forum. 18. We are also mindful that in intra-Court appellate jurisdiction, interference is limited. Unless the order under appeal suffers from patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error, the appellate court would be slow to substitute its discretion for that of the learned Single Judge. 19. 18. We are also mindful that in intra-Court appellate jurisdiction, interference is limited. Unless the order under appeal suffers from patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error, the appellate court would be slow to substitute its discretion for that of the learned Single Judge. 19. In the facts of the present case, we find that the learned Single Judge has exercised jurisdiction judiciously, has analysed the Collector’s order in a structured manner, and has safeguarded the rights of the appellants by granting liberty to approach the Civil Court. No manifest error or perversity is made out. 20. Accordingly, the order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for interference. The same is hereby affirmed. 21. The present intra court appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. 22. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of.