IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1893 of 2008 1. LALAN KUMAR SINGH 2. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Both sons of Late Narendra Prasad Singh, resident of village Pakariya, P.S. Shambhuganj, District – Banka 3. Most. Uma Devi, W/o Late Narendra Prasad Singh, R/o. Village Pakariya, P.S. Shambhuganj, District – Banka …………………… Plaintiffs - Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Collector, Banka, District - Banka. …………………….. Defendant – Opposite Party 2. Dayanand Singh, son of Late Nawal Kishore Singh, Resident of village – Pakariya, P.S. Shambhuganj, District - Banka. Intervenor – Opposite Patry Opposite-Parties ----------- Advocate for Petitioner: - Ajit Kumar Singh No. 2 3 13.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The plaintiffs-petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 12.08.2008 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Banka in Title Suit No. 96 of 2007, whereby it has allowed the petition on behalf of the intervenor opposite party no. 2 to be impleaded as defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though lands in the cadastral survey Khatiyan as well as revisional survey Khatiyan are described as Gairmajarua Aam and Anabad Sarvasadharan and Purani Parti respectiely, but the nature of land had changed and the same was settled in favour of the grand mother of the plaintiffs-petitioners in the year 1934 and thereafter the petitioners started paying rent to the Jamindar and the Jamindar filed returned at the time of vesting of Zamindari showing the father of the petitioners as the land holder. However, when the State of Bihar did not accept rent with regard to the aforesaid land then Jamabandi Case No. 34 of 1973-74 was filed and the same was allowed in their favour by creating Jamabandi No. 209. Subsequently, however, some dispute arose due to the intervenor Opposite Party. Ultimately, matter came before the Collector of Banka, wherein also the intervenor-opposite party appeared and opposed the petitioners and the Collector, Banka has cancelled their Jamabandi necessitating filing of present suit. In the suit the intervenor- opposite party has again appeared only with a purpose to harass them as he has been doing before the revenue authorities. Therefore, the contention is that their application ought to have been rejected by the trial court. It is admitted fact that the land in question has been recorded as ‘Gairmajarua Aam’ in the cadastral survey khatiyan. In the revisional survey khatiyan, the nature of land has been shown as ‘Anabad Sarvasadharan’ and ‘Purani Parti’. Further, the intervenor was all along raising objections against the petitioners and upon his objection the Jamabandi of the petitioners had been cancelled, which had necessitated filing of the suit by the plaintiffs. Keeping in view, all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order allowing the intervenor concerned to be impleaded as defendant in the title suit concerned. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. Kundan (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)