IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12292 of 2003 1. MESSERS ARJUNDAS AMLA TOLA, Katihar, P.O., P.S. and District- Katihar, through one of the partners Mahesh Kumar Malkani. 2. Mahesh Kumar Malkani, S/o late Arjun Das resident of Amla Tola, Katihar, P.O., P.S. and District- Katihar. . . . . . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Collector, Katihar. . . . . . . Respondents. For the Petitioners : Mr. P.K. Jaipuriyar, Advocate : Mr. Anshuman Jaipuriyar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Dhurendra Kumar AC to SC 5. ----------- 5/ 01.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. In the instant writ application, the petitioners pray for quashing the order dated 26.04.2003 passed by Collector, Katihar, respondent no.2, in Misc. Permission Case no. 283/2001-02 refusing permission to sell the lands situated in Mauzaa, Durgapur, Thana no. 104, Thana Katihar, District Katihar being old ward no.7, appertaining to new ward no.9 of Katihar Municipality. The petitioner no.1 is a firm in the name and style of M/s Arjundas and petitioner no.2 is one of the partners of petitioner no.1 and son of late Arjun Das. Late Arjun Das purchased 2 ½ Kathas of land by lugga of 4½ cubits appertaining to C.S. plot no. 52, C.S. Khata no. 5 in Mauza Durgapur by registered sale deed no. 13923 dated 14.06.1965 for the firm which is M/s Arjun Das. After purchase of lands, construction was made on the aforesaid plot and the land was also mutated in his name vide Jamabandi No. 1092. The petitioners state that during the Municipal Survey operation 1.45 points of land out of 2 ½ Kathas was wrongly been - 2 - recorded in Anaabad Bihar Sarkar as M.S. plot no. 147 Ka and Kha under Khata no. 111 and 30 points wrongly recorded in the name of Nagarpalika, Katihar in M.S. Khata no. 108. The petitioners filed Title Suit no. 90 of 2000 for declaration of their title on the aforesaid land in the Court of Sub-Judge, Katihar in which the respondents were also a party. The learned Sub-Judge, Kaatihar by judgment dated 17.07.2001 decreed the suit in their favour. A copy of judgment dated 17.07.2001 and 01.08.2001 are annexed as Anneuxres- 2 and 2/1 to this application. The petitioners state that thereafter they filed an application before the District Magistrate, Katihar seeking permission to sell the lands. Petitioners further submit that various documents in favour of their case including the original sale deed, the copy of register-II of Mauza Durgapur, Jamabandi no. 1092 etc. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, however, Collector, Katihar by the impugned order refused permission to sell the land on the ground that a Misc. petition under Order IX Rule 6 is pending for setting aside the ex- parte judgment and decree. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid judgment and decree still stands. Counsel for the State by referring to paragraph nos. 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit states that the land was recorded in the name of Municipality, Katihar and it is subjudiced in title appeal filed by the State Government. Heard counsel for the parties, it would appear from the materials on record that the land in question was a purchased land by - 3 - petitioners’ father and subsequently Jamabandi was also created in their favour. Subsequently, holding tax has also been paid regularly. During the Municipal survey some portions of the land and building was recorded in favour of State of Bihar and Municipality, which was challenging in Title Suit no. 90 of 2000. The aforesaid title suit was finally decreed in favour of the petitioners. It appears that an application under Order IX Rule 6 being Misc. Case no. 4 of 2003 has been filed by State of Bihar, which is still pending. Mere pendency of the Miscellaneous case cannot come in way of registration of the land, in view of various documents referred to above including the decree of civil suit. Thus, the refusal of the permission by learned Collector, Katihar, is being set aside. It is made clear that any sale deed made by the petitioner no.2 would be subject to any subsequent order passed by competent civil court. In the result, this application is allowed. The Collector, Katihar (District Registrar) would grant permission for registration of the sale deed in question on the basis of decree passed by the civil court. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)