IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.305 of 2011 1. Raji Ahmad Khan 2. Rafi Ahmad Khan 3. Wali Ahmad Khan Sons of late Amir Hassan Khan, resident of village Bhalpatti Tola Nainaghat, P.O. Nainaghat, P.S. Sadar, distt. Darbhanga 4. Rabia Khatoon, D/o late Amir Hassan Khan, wife of Late Mahmood Alam Khan, resident of village Karhari, P.O. Ahilwara, distt. Darbhanga 5. Najama Khatoon, D/o late Amir Hassan Khan, wife of Anjar Ahmad Khan, resident of village and P.O. Ahilwara, Via. Biraul, distt. Darbhanga 6. Gouri Khatoon, D/o late Amir Hassan Khan, wife of Samsujama Khan, resident of village Karhari, P.O. Ahilwara, Via. Biraul, distt. Darbhanga 7. Asama Khatoon, W/o Asharaful Islam Khan, alias Ladala, resident of village and P.O. Nainaghat, Via. Sakari, P.S. Sadar, distt. Darbhanga Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Addl. Member, Board of Revenue, Patna 3. The Collector, Darbhanga, distt. Darbhanga 4. The Dy. Collector, Land Reforms, Darbhanga, distt. Darbhanga …. Respondents – Respondents 1st Party 5. Kamil Hussain Khan, S/o Ahmad Hussain Khan, resident of Village Bhalpatti, tole Nainaghat, P.O. Nainaghat, P.S. Sadar, distt. Darbhanga 6. Manzar Hussain Khan 7. Amir Hussain Khan 8. Nasir Hussain Khan 9. Azhar Hussain Khan All are minor sons of Kamil Hussain Khan, resident of village Bhalpatti, Tole Nainaghat, P.O. Nainaghat, P.S. sadar, distt. Darbhanga under the guardianship of their father, Kamil Hussain Khan …. Writ petitioners- Respondents 2nd Party - 2 - 3 6.7.2011 10. Md. Sayeed Khan, S/0 Sabir Ali Khan 11. Md. Muretaja Khan, S/0 late Zahid Ali Khan 12. Bibi Jahani Begum, W/o Md. Murtaja Khan Residents of village Bhulpatti Tole Nainaghat, P.O. Nainaghat, P.S. Sadar, distt. Darbhanga …. Respondents - Respondents 3rd Party --------- Heard the parties. On behalf of the appellants it has been submitted that the learned Single Judge should not have decided an issue of fact as to whether the vended Plot No. 6215 on one corner touches the boundary of Plot No.6221 belonging to the writ petitioners and ought to have remanded the matter to the Board of Revenue for examining the said issue if there was any doubt in respect of findings recorded by the Board of Revenue or other authorities. The Writ Court found that the cadastral map as well as the revisional map were on record and on bare perusal of the maps, it was found in favour of the petitioners that Plot No.6221 touches the boundary of vended Plot No.6215. In order to decide whether the matter should be - 3 - remanded or not, we have also examined the two maps and we find ourselves in agreement with the view of the Writ Court. In such a situation, ordering for remand would be either a formality or infusing life to a litigation which has justly been concluded by the Writ Court. Although ordinarily in exercise of writ jurisdiction this Court does not go into issue of facts but when the two survey maps available on record clinched the issue one way or the other, the Court cannot be expected to shy away from recording its finding. In the facts of the case, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)