IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7030 of 2009 Ram Dular Singh, Son of Late Ram Prasad Singh, Resident of Mohalla Khar Katta Upperdih, P.S. Civil Lines, District Gaya. ---- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Superintendent of Survey, Gaya. 3. Assistant Superintendent of Survey, Gaya. 4. Akhil Bharat Jay Guru Sampradaya through its holder of Power of Attorney Shri Govind Das Bhattacharya Son of Shri Guru Das Bhattarcharya, Resident of Mohalla Bamnighat, P.S. Civil Lines, Gaya, District Gaya. 5. Gaya Municipal Corporation, Gaya through its Chief Executive Officer. ------ Respondents. ---------------------------------- 5 23.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent no. 4, Corporation and the State. This matter relates to the entry of the municipal holding which is being disputed by the respondent no. 4. The Assistant Superintendent of Survey, Gaya passed an order in favour of the petitioner finding him to be in possession of the lands in question. The respondent no. 4 filed an appeal. The appellate authority came to a finding that the petitioner did not have any document to substantiate his claim that he had any right or title over the lands in question and as such, allowed the appeal of the respondent no. 4. This order dated 23.12.2008 has been challenged by the petitioenr. 2 Without going into the facts of the case, it may be noted that earlier an order of eviction was passed by the Executive Officer against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged it in a writ application. The respondent no. 4 also came before this Court challenging the dropping the proceeding by the District Magistrate. This Court held that the petitioner was in possession although the Court gave no finding regarding the title and right of the petitioner to be in possession. The order of eviction was set aside on the ground that the Executive Officer could not have passed any such order as it was beyond the scope of powers of the Executive Officer. The District Magistrate who heard the matter in appeal dropped the proceeding and ordered the parties to file a civil suit. This Court held that infact dropping of the proceeding cured the defect of the order of the Executive Magistrate. Counsel for the respondent emphasizes on the fact that the petitioner has no document of title whereas, the respondent no. 4 can show his right and title to the 3 property in question. It is further submitted that in a mutation proceeding the application of the petitioner for mutating his name in the revenue records was rejected. All these facts may be true but at present the factual position is that a title suit is pending between the parties which will ultimately decide as to which of the parties has title over the lands in question. Counsel for the respondent no. 4 submits that he has always raised objection to the possession of the petitioner whereas the petitioner submits that this fact can only be determined by the Court in the suit. Be that as it may, the order dated 23.12.2008 has to be quashed. I may make it clear that recording of the name of the petitioner in the Municipal Corporation does not create any title in his favour and all the facts would be open for discussion and the finding of the municipal authority will be subject to the decision of the Civil Suit. This writ application is thus, disposed of with the observations aforesaid. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)