IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13974 of 2011 1. Sharif Mian S/O Late Jannat Mian R/O Vill. Kharashra Tola Mohmadganj, P.S. Durgawati, Distt. Kaimur, Bhabhua 2. Mukhtar Mian S/O Sharif Mian R/O Vill. Kharashra Tola Mohmadganj, P.S. Durgawati, Distt. Kaimur, Bhabhua 3. Murtuja Mian S/O Sharif Mian R/O Vill. Kharashra Tola Mohmadganj, P.S. Durgawati, Distt. Kaimur, Bhabhua 4. Alauddin Mian S/O Sharif Mian R/O Vill. Kharashra Tola Mohmadganj, P.S. Durgawati, Distt. Kaimur, Bhabhua 5. Ishlam Mian S/O Sharif Mian R/O Vill. Kharashra Tola Mohmadganj, P.S. Durgawati, Distt. Kaimur, Bhabhua ……. Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Director Of Consolidation Bihar, Patna 3. Consolidation Officer, Durgawati, Bhabhua 4. Moharram Mian S/O Late Jannat Mian R/O Vill. Kharashara, Tola Mohammadganj, P.S. Durgawati, P.O. Chhata, Distt. Kaimur Bhabhua ……. Respondents For the Petitioners : Mr. Upendra Prasad II, Advocate For the State : Mr. N.K.Singh, S.C. 6 2 06.09.2011 Petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 22.04.2008 passed by the Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna in Consolidation Revision No. 71 of 2001, rejecting the claim of the petitioners thereof, however, directing the Consolidation Officer, Durgawati to show the respective possession of the petitioners over 56 ½ decimals of land appertaining to revisional survey plot no. 1681 as the averment 2 regarding 50 : 50 possession of the respective sides (that is of the petitioners and the respondent no. 4) upon the land in question has not been contested by the opposite parties (petitioners herein) despite service of notice on two occasions and several chances given to them. It is submitted that the cadastral survey plot no. 775 of cadastral survey khata no. 97 of an area of 2.27 acres was prepared as Gair Majarua Aam. However, petitioners submit that in the remarks column of khatian, possession of Huseni Dhunia, who was maternal uncle of both the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 4, was recorded along with trees of mango and mahua. The land remained in possession of Huseni Dhunia till his lifetime and after his death Jaitun Bibi and Jannat Mian came in possession over the same. Both the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 4 are sons of Jannat Mian and Jaitun Bibi. During the revisional survey the aforesaid C.S. Plot No. 775 was split into three new plots one being revisional survey plot no. 1681 (1.13 acres) 3 appertaining to revisional survey plot no. 188 was recorded as Anabad Sarva Sadharan. In the revisional order, it has been stated that the present case relates only with the aforesaid revisional survey plot no. 1681 which is in dispute between the parties. However, it is submitted that the Director, Consolidation has erroneously directed the Consolidation Officer to show the possession of the petitioners over 56 ½ decimals of the land concerned. I have heard the petitioners and the State and perused the records of the case. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it appears that notices were served on the petitioners on two occasions, however, they did not choose to appear before the revisional authorities. Thus, the order was passed ex parte on 22.04.2008. However, it is apparent from the revisional order that it has considered the relationship of the petitioner no. 1 as well as respondent no. 4 and also the entry in the recorded cadastral survey khatian, showing possession of Huseni Dhuni. It has been found that the land 4 having been recorded both in the cadastral survey and in the revisional survey as Gairmajarua Aam and Anabad Sarva Sadharan, the claim of right and title was rejected. However, the possession of the revision petitioner upon 50 % of the disputed land, i.e., 56 ½ decimals was directed to be shown due to the reason that the petitioners as well as respondent no. 4 are maternal grand sons of Huseni Dhunia, i.e., the person who had been shown in possession of the land. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners could not point out any illegality in the aforesaid order. In fact he himself submitted that the respondent no. 4 of the revision case would also be entitled for 50 % possession of the land. Only question raised by the petitioners is that the land in dispute was about 2.27 acres. However, the direction was given only with respect to 56 ½ decimals of land. This submission of the petitioners is noted only to be rejected for the reason that the revisional court has clearly stated in its order that the dispute is limited with regard to the revisional survey plot no. 1681 having total area of 1.13 acres. He has not 5 formed any opinion with regard to right, title and possession regarding other pieces of land. Accordingly, this writ application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)