IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1791 of 2010 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 8972/1988). 1. Birendra Singh S/O Late Kapildeo Yadav R/O Vill.- Basamanpur, P.S.- Piro, Distt.- Bhojpur 2. Surendra Singh S/O Late Kapildeo Yadav R/O Vill.- Basamanpur, P.S.- Piro, Distt.- Bhojpur 3. Mostt. Dhanpatia Kuer W/O Late Kapildeo Yadav R/O Vill.- Basamanpur, P.S.- Piro, Distt.- Bhojpur ……Appellants. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Director Of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna 2. The Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Bhojpur At Arrah 3. The Consolidation Officer, Piro, Distt.- Bhojpur 4. Jiyachi Devi D/O Late Govind Yadav, W/O Gopal Singh R/O Vill.- Bagen, P.S.- Akorhi Gola, Distt.- Rohtas 5. Asha Devi D/O Late Govind Yadav, W/O Binay Singh R/O Vill.- Deo Parsar, P.S.- Gorari, Distt.- Rohtas 6. Nirsi Devi D/O Late Govind Yadav, W/O Dhanji Singh R/O Vill.- Chauria Tola, P.S.- Sanjhauli, Distt.- Rohtas 7. Laldhari Yadav S/O Late Shri Bhajan Yadav R/O Vill.- Boknawa, P.S.- Bikramganj, Distt.- Rohtas 8. Brij Mohan Yadav S/O Late Shri Bhajan Yadav R/O Vill.- Boknawa, P.S.- Bikramganj, Distt.- Rohtas 9. Sheo Bachan Singh S/O Dhanraj Singh Yadav R/O Vill.- Basamanpur, P.S.- Piro, Distt.- Bhojpur 10. Shri Butani Singh Yadav S/O Late Bujhawan Yadav R/O Vill.- Basamanpur, P.S.- Piro, Distt.- Bhojpur …. Respondents. ---------------------------------- 4. 15.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/writ-petitioner and perused the order of the writ Court. In our considered view, the issue raised on behalf of parties and noted in Para-4 of the order under appeal, has been decided in accordance with law in favour of the writ-petitioner. Since the vendor subsequently 2 accepted the payment of balance consideration money and there was already a sale-deed in favour of writ-petitioner, the writ Court has rightly held that the deed of cancellation executed by the vendor will be of no significance. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there may be many other issues arising between the parties if the sale-deed made by a co-sharer of the appellants in favour of the writ-petitioner is allowed to stand. We are of the considered view that such a submission does not have any relevance for deciding the issue arising between the parties and which has been decided by the writ Court. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. It goes without saying that if in future there is bona fide dispute between the parties, the appellants, if so advised, may seek their remedy in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Jay/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)