R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) HEARD .
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 6 directly moved the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Rajmahal (for short "the D.C.L.R.") for mutation who by order dated 11.7.1997 (Annexure 7) recommended her case for mutation, though petitioner 'sapplication for mutation was pending before the Circle Officer, Rajmahal, who was the competent authority. The case of the private respondents and the State is that if the Circle Officer refuses to entertain the petition for mutation, the D.C.L.R. was competent to entertain and pass orders on the same.
(3.) IN reply, it is submitted that respondent No. 6 has not brought on record any document to show that the Circle Officer, in fact, refused to entertain the petition of respondent No. 6.;