IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5932 of 2009 SHEO PUJAN PANDEY son of late Bir Bhanjan Pandey, resident of Village Mishirwalia P.S.Bramhpur District Buxar. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Joint Director Consolidation, Headquarter, Bihar, Patna 3.Deputy Director Consolidation, Headquarter, Bihar,Patna. 4.Ganga Thakur son of late Brahmdeo Thakur, resident of Village Sahiyar P.O.Niazipur P.S.Simari District Buxar. ----------- 2 12.5.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 4.10.2007 passed in Revision case no.318 of 1993 by the Joint Director Consolidation, Headquarter, Bihar, Patna. By the impugned order revision application has been dismissed. The revision case was filed by Most.Muneshwari Kuer. Her prayer was to open Khata of disputed land in her name. The prayer of original petitioner was earlier rejected by order dated 28.2.1994. Against this order she moved before the High Court by filing C.W.J.C.No.5954 of 1994 and by order dated 7.8.1995 the impugned order was quashed. The matter was remanded to the respondent authority to decide the issue in accordance with law. Most. Muneshwari Kuer died during the pendency of the revision application. Present petitioner Sheo Pujan Pandey claims to be the donee in whose favour a gift deed was executed by Muneshwari Kuer with respect to the disputed land. Before the revisional authority Sheo Pujan pandey filed an application for substitution of his name in place of Muneshwari Kumar and for allowing the relief prayed by Muneshwari Kuer in his favour. This 2 was objected by the respondents as the competence of Most Muneshwari Kuer for executing gift deed itself was under dispute for the reasons that her husband died in the year 1943, prior to 1956 and she had only right of maintenance during the life time. She had no right to transfer or alienate the property held by her husband. The revisional court had rightly refused the prayer of the petitioner for the reason that unless the question of title is decided no direction can be issued for opening Khata in the name of the donor/donee. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The petitioner has remedy before the civil court as the question relating to title can only be decided by civil court. This application is disposed of. Sss/- (Mridula Mishra, J)