D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been preferred mainly aggrieved by an order passed by the revisional authority i.e. Additional Collector, Dumka in R (Mutation) Revision No. 1 of 1998 -99 dated January 1, 2002 (Annexure -1 to the memo of present petition), whereby, the revisional authority has quashed and set aside the order, passed by the Circle Officer, Maheshpur Raj, Dumka, dated January 16, 1996 in Mutation Case No. 143 of 1995 - 96, as well as the order, passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Dumka, in Mutation Appeal No. 6 of 1997 -98 dated October 18, 1997, and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, including the family arrangement dated January 15, 1983 and other documents of Mutation Case No. 101 of 1983 -84, which are annexed with the memo of present petition, I hereby quash and set aside the order, passed by the revisional authority i.e. the order of Additional Collector, Dumka, in R (Mutation) Revision No. 1 of 1998 -99 dated January 1, 2002, for the following facts and reasons: '' (i) It appears that the petitioners are, in fact, five brothers (petitioners + respondent nos. 3 and 4), who have got several properties from their father. The question involved herein is of a land, bearing Jamabandi No. 16/Kha/2, Plot No. 110, admeasuring 10, Katthas of Village -Sonwa Dangal within the district of Dumka. (ii) It appears that initially Mutation Case No. 101 of 1983 -84 was instituted. In that case, ultimately Panchanama in the form of family arrangement of all the lands was arrived at, which is Annexure -5 to the memo of petition. The said family arrangement is dated January 15, 1983 and it was presented in Mutation Case No. 101 of 1983 -84. As per the said document, the land, in question, was accepted as a joint property by all the five brothers. The said family arrangement at Annexure -5 to the memo of petition dated January 14, 1983, was signed by all the five brothers. Thus, it was never a case of the present respondent no. 3, who has preferred a revision application bearing R (Mutation) Revision No. 1 of 1998 -99, that the property, in question, was his self -acquired property. The aforesaid family arrangement has also been used and accepted in another criminal proceeding before the competent court in Cr. Misc. Case No. 348 of 1986, instituted under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against respondent no. 3 and others. A compromise was arrived at and in that compromise also, it has been accepted by respondent no. 3 that Mutation Case No. 101/13 -8 -83 -84, which was effected between the above parties at Collector's Office, Maheshpur Raj, is totally accepted by both the parties above. This document is annexed as Annexure -7 to the memo of present petition, which is a joint compromise pursis/application/document in Cr. Misc. Case No. 348 of 1986. Thus, Annexure -5 to the memo of petition is a copy of a Panchanama. The petition, which is in the form of a family arrangement dated January 15, 1983, drawn in presence of all the five brothers, which is also signed by all the five brothers, was referred in Mutation Case No. 101 of 1983 -84 and is also referred and accepted in Cr. Misc. Case No. 348 of 1986, as per Annexure -7 to the memo of petition. (iii) It appears that the order, passed by the Circle Officer dated January 16, 1996 in Mutation Case No. 143 of 1995 -96 is absolutely true and correct and in consonance with the facts of the present case. The total land, involved in the present case, admeasuring 10 Katthas of land, situated at Village -Sonwa Dangal within the district of Dumka, was a joint property of all the five brothers, as per the family arrangement and, therefore, rightly the Circle Officer has mutated 2 Katthas of land, of Plot No. 110, in favour of petitioner no. 1. Against this order at Annexure -2, passed by the Circle Officer, an appeal was preferred by respondent no. 3 bearing Mutation Appeal No. 6 of 1997 - 98. (iv) It appears that the said appeal has also been dismissed, which was preferred by respondent no. 3, by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Dumka, vide order dated October 18, 1997. (v) It also appears that against the order, passed by the Circle Officer in Mutation Case No. 143 of 1995 -96 (Annexure -2 to the memo of petition), another brother, who is respondent no. 4, had also preferred an appeal bearing Mutation Appeal No. 2 of 1997 - 98 before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Dumka. The same was also dismissed. Thus, the order, passed by the Circle Officer in Mutation Case No. 143 of 1995 -96, was upheld in two different Mutation Appeals i.e. Mutation Appeal No. 2 of 1997 -98 as well as in Mutation Appeal No. 6 of 1997 -98. (vi) It appears that respondent no. 3, brother of the petitioners, who had preferred Mutation Appeal No. 6 of 1997 -98, being aggrieved of the order, passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Dumka, dated October 18, 1997 (Annexure -3 to the memo of petition), preferred Revision Application bearing R (Mutation) Revision No. 1 of 1998 -99 before the Additional Collector, Dumka. (vii) It appears that the Additional Collector, Dumka, has lost sight of the fact that the document of family arrangement, which is Annexure -5 to the memo of petition dated January 15, 1983, has already been accepted in Mutation Case No. 101 of 1983 -84 and the said family arrangement was drawn in presence of all the five brothers, which was also signed by all the five brothers. In a further subsequent proceeding, namely, Cr. Misc. No. 348 of 1996, instituted under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this family arrangement was also accepted in a joint compromise petition, given by the present respondent no. 3 (Annexure -7 to the memo of petition). Thus, the Additional Collector cannot brush aside the effect of the family arrangement dated January 15,1983 (Annexure -5 to the memo of petition), which reveals that the land, in question, appertaining to Plot No. 110, admeasuring approximately 10 Katthas, was a joint property. It is mentioned in the document of family arrangement at Annexure -5 to the memo of petition that the property, in question, appertaining to Plot No. 110, admeasuring 10 Katthas of land, is jointly owned by all the five brothers and, therefore, each brother is entitled for 2 Katthas of land and, therefore, the Circle Officer has mutated the entries in favour of the present petitioner no. 1 for 2 Katthas of land in Plot No. 110, situated at Village -Sonwa Dangal, within the district of Dumka. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated at all by the revisional authority, which is an error, apparent on the face of the record. (viii) It has also been observed in the revisional order that the Circle Officer has passed the order dated January 16, 1996 whereas some officer had given a report dated May 16, 1996. This is also not a reason for which an order, passed by the Circle Officer, can be quashed and set aside. Apart from the report, given by a Revenue Officer dated May 16, 1996, it appears that there is a family arrangement at Annexure -5, which is dated January 15, 1983, which reveals that the land, in question, appertaining to Plot No. 110 and measuring 10 Katthas of land, is owned jointly by all the five brothers. The main basis of passing the order by the Circle Officer is the document of family arrangement dated January 15, 1983 and not the report, given by the Revenue Officer dated May 16, 1996. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the revisional authority and, therefore, the reason, given by the revisional authority, for upsetting an order, passed by the Circle Officer, is devoid of any merits and is totally de hors of the facts of the present case. One more reason has been given by the revisional authority in the order dated January 1, 2002 at Annexure -1 to the memo of present petition, that other brothers were never heard before passing mutation entries in favour of petitioner no. 1. Perhaps, this is not required at all. The claim of the petitioner no. 1 before the Circle Officer in Mutation Case No. 143 of 1995 -96 was only to the extent, which he was claiming his share. Petitioner No. 1 was claiming his share to the extent of 2 Katthas of land, appertaining to Plot No. 110, situated at Village - Sonwa Dangal within the district of Dumka, mainly on the basis of family arrangement dated January 15, 1983 (Annexure -5 to the memo of present petition). If petitioner no. 1 was claiming only 2 Katthas of land and so long he was restricting his claim only to the extent, to which he was claiming ownership, there is no need to hear other brothers. Even otherwise also, an appeal is a continuous proceeding of the original proceedings. Two appeals were preferred against the order, passed by the Circle Officer, by two brothers i.e. by respondent no. 3 as well as by respondent no. 4, namely, Mutation Appeal No. 2 of 1997 -98 as well as Mutation Appeal No. 6 of 1997 -98 and both the appeals were dismissed by the orders of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Dumka. This respondent no. 3 was already heard because the appeal is always continuous proceeding of the original proceedings. Otherwise also, as stated hereinabove, petitioner no. 1 was claiming oniy 2 Katthas of land, out of total 10 Katthas of land, appertaining to Plot No. 110, which is jointly owned by five brothers, on the basis of family arrangement, at Annexure -5 to the memo of present petition, and was accepted in earlier Mutation Case No. 110 of 1983 - 84 as well as in another proceeding bearing Cr. Misc. Case No. 348 of 1986. Thus, no error, whatsoever, has been committed by the Circle Officer in passing the order dated January 16, 1996 as well as no error has been committed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, in dismissing Mutation Appeal No. 6 of 1997 -98 vide order dated October 18, 1997. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the revisional authority i.e. by the Additional Collector, Dumka, while passing the order dated January 1, 2002 in R(Mutation) Revision No. 1 of 1998 -99. In fact, in the whole revisional order, it has never been pointed out that the family arrangement was ever disputed by respondent no. 3, which was accepted more than once, as stated hereinabove, namely, initially in Mutation Case No 101 of 1983 -84 and secondly in Cr. Misc. Case No. 348 of 1986 and also which was signed by all the five brothers. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I hereby quash and set aside the order, passed by the Additional Collector, Dumka, dated January 1, 2002 in R (Mutation) Revision No. 1 of 1998 -99 at Annexure -1 to the memo of present petition. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed with no order as to costs.;