Letters Patent Appeal No.390 OF 2001 (Against judgment and order dated 20.3.2001, passed in CWJC No. 3580 of 2001, by Hon’ble Mr. Justice R N Prasad) ******* 1. GOPAL SONAR @ GOPAL PRASAD VERMA son of Shri Nand Lal Sonar 2. Nand Lal Sonar @ Nand Lal Prasad Verma @ Nand Lal Jee son of Late Hari Narain Sonar - Both residents of Village – Simri, PS Simri District Buxar ………(Petitioners in the writ proceeding) Appellants Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, District of Buxar at Buxar 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Dumraon at Dumraon 4. The Anchal Adhikari, Simri, Block at Simri, District Buxar 5. Shri Banjhhu @ Ram Pujan Sonar 6. Shri Ghurhu @ Ram Pravesh Sonar -Both sons of Late Shri Ram Sonar 7. Shri Kanhaiya Sonar son of late Ram Dahin Sonar -Respondent nos. 5 to 7 are residents of Village –Simri, PS Simri, District Buxar ……. Respondents – Respondents **** For the Appellants : Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey For the State : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Kumar Standing Counsel no.16 For Respondent nos.5 to 7 : Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh ***** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR.KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN S K Katriar & Jyoti Saran, J. J. The petitioners of CWJC No. 3580 of 2001 have peferred this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature of Patna, and are aggrieved by the order dated 20.3.2001, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition was dismissed with the liberty to the writ petitioners with the following direction:- “Accordingly, this application is dismissed. The party concerned is at liberty to get his right declared by the competent Civil Court.” 2. A brief statement of fact essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. The present appellants had preferred the writ petition against an order passed in mutation proceeding against them. The learned first authority had passed the order in favour of the writ petitioners directing mutation of the lands in question, but was set aside by the learned appellate authority and upheld by the 2 learned revisional authority leading to the writ petition. It related to Khata no. 128, and Khata no. 131. The writ petition was disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits before us that present respondent nos. 5 to 7 had earlier preferred CWJC No.8902 of 2000 (Ram Pujan Seth & Another vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), which was dismissed by order dated 8.9.2000, the operative portion of which is reproduced hereinbelow:- “In that view of the matter, I do not want to interfere with the order impugned. The concerned party shall be at liberty to get his right declared by the competent Civil Court. In case suit is filed, the same shall be decided without being prejudiced by the order of the Consolidation authority. This application is thus disposed of.” Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there are two competing orders directing for institution of suits with respect to the same lands. The question therefore, in his submission, arises as to who should be relegated to the remedy of the civil court. 4. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 to 7 has supported the impugned order. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears from a perusal of the order dated 8.9.2000, passed in CWJC No.8902 of 2000, that the same arose out of the proceeding under the Consolidation Act, and the learned single Judge gave liberty to the concerned party to file a civil suit. The present proceeding arises out of the mutation proceeding and incidentally the same learned single Judge has ordered that the party concerned shall be at liberty to get his right declared by a competent civil court. It thus appears to us that there is no direction or the like to one or the other party to institute the suit. The aggrieved person who is likely to suffer on account of the authorities under the Consolidation Act or the mutation authorities may file the suit. We, therefore, do not find any inconsistency between the two orders that the same cannot be implemented simultaneously. Secondly, it is a possible situation that both the parties may file separate suits. In case the issues raised in both the suits are found identical, then it will be open to the parties to move the concerned courts for amalgamation of the suits, and disposal of the same by a common judgment to avoid inconsistent orders. 3 6. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Jyoti Saran ) Patna High Court The 19th August 2009 NAFR/mrl