IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.1175 OF 2002 BHOLA ROY, SON OF LATE TETAR ROY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DIGHI KURD, POLICE STATION HAJIPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI ……………PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, VAISHALI, HAJIPUR 3. THE D.C.L.R., HAJIPUR, VAISHALI 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, HAJIPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI 5. RAM PRAVESH ROY, SON OF LATE RAM ASHISH ROY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DIGHI KURD, POLICE STATION HAJIPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI 6. AMOD ROY, SON OF LATE RAM JANAM ROY 7. PRAMOD ROY, SON OF LATE RAM JANAM ROY 8. VINOD ROY, SON OF LATE RAM JANAM ROY 9. MANOJ ROY, SON OF LATE RAM JANAM ROY 6 TO 9 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DIGHI KURD, POLICE STATION HAJIPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI ………………………………………………………………………..RESPONDENTS ******** FOR THE PETITIOENR :- MR. ANIL KUMAR SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. DHURENDRA KUMAR, AC TO SC V FOR PVT. RESP. :- MR. SURENDRA KISHORE THAKUR, ADVOCATE MR. RANJIT KUMAR THAKUR, ADVOCATE ************* 10 17/09/2010 The petitioner claims that he was settled 14 kathas 4 dhurs of land of plot no. 108, khata no. 79 by the ex-landlord Babu Raghunath Prasad Singh sometime in the year 1938. In the cadastral survey, the lands were recorded in the name of ex-landlord. During the revisional survey, the lands in question have been clubbed with the ancestral lands of the petitioner’s family and then recorded in the name of the petitioner and his two brothers. It is further submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been paying rent to the State of Bihar right up till the year 2002. It is said 2 that the petitioner has his residential house over the lands in question. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the petitioner did not take any steps to get the revisional survey entry corrected by filing an application under Section 106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act, and now he is trying to open the proceedings by making out a case that the ancestral lands and the settled lands have wrongly been clubbed together. In the circumstances aforesaid, it is not possible for the Court to decide the disputed question of facts. The parties aggrieved by the impugned order of the Collector, Hajipur may take appropriate action by filing a suit for correction of the revisional survey entry and for declaration of title. It is well settled that a document of mutation is a piece of evidence which is rebuttable and is subject to the final adjudication with respect to the title of the parties. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )