IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16956 of 2010 INDRADEV PRASAD INDU, SON OF JAGARNATH PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BANKEY BAZAR, P.S. BANKEY BAZAR, DISTRICT GAYA. ----- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION, GAYA 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION, GAYA 5. CONSOLIDA TION OFICER, AAMAS, DISTRICT GAYA 6. SHANKAR SINGH, SON OF RAJA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAFIGANJ, P.S. ROSHANGANJ, DISTRICT GAYA. ------ RESPONDENTS ----------- 2 8.10.2010 Petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the map which has been prepared by the consolidation authorities has cut off a portion of his lands appertaining to Khata No. 278, Plot No. 77, Chak Khata No. 26, Plot No. 82 measuring 15 decimals. The lands aforesaid were recorded in the name of the State of Bihar in the revisional survey. Petitioner filed a case for correction of the entry in the revisional survey which was allowed by order dated 8.9.1981, passed in Case No. 313 of 1979/68. After the order aforesaid, a Khatiyan was prepared in the name of the petitioner which is contained in Annexure-2. However, at the time of preparation of the survey map contained in Annexure-3/A, it would appear in comparison with the earlier 2 map (Annexure-3) that some of the lands appertaining to Khasra No. 77 have been cut off in the map. The result is that the neighbouring raiyat is trying to take advantage of this map and is trying to encroach on the lands of the petitioner. After the order correcting the entry in the revisional survey, the petitioner moved the Consolidation Officer for correction of the map under Section 33A of the Consolidation Act. The application was dismissed on 1.3.1988 on the ground that no case was made out for interference under Section 33A of the Consolidation Act. The petitioner thereafter filed an application before the Joint Director, Consolidation vide Miscellaneous Case No. 14 of 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Joint Director, Consolidation sent the matter to the Deputy Director, Consolidation. Till today, however, the authorities have not taken any steps to make the said correction in the map. Once it has been held in favour of the petitioner that the land belongs to him 3 and the name of the State of Bihar has been deleted. The State of Bihar has not filed any appeal against the order contained in Annexure-1 allowing the petitioner’s prayer, I see no reason why the concerned authorities should not correct their records in accordance with the orders. Preparation of the Khatiyan is an important step for indicating that the lands stand in the name of the petitioner however, the survey map would unnecessarily put a clout on the title of the petitioner and as such, it is incumbent on the authorities to make the said correction, once they have accepted that the petitioner has title and possession with respect to Khata No. 278, Plot No. 77, measuring 15 decimals. I accordingly direct that the Consolidation Officer, Aamas, District Gaya should call upon Shankar Singh (respondent no. 6) and after getting the lands measured in presence of both the parties, an order should be passed recording that the survey map with respect to the plot of the petitioner should be corrected. The said order should be passed within a period of 4 three months on appearance of Shankar Singh. I may clarify at this juncture that although Shankar Singh is party in this case, it appears prima facie that Shankar Singh never objected to the entry in the name of the State of Bihar during the revisional survey proceedings and thus it would appear that he did not claim any possession or title over the lands in question. Considering this aspect, this Court does not think it necessary at this stage to hear Shankar Singh in the matter. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)