IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9698 of 2008 1. REENA DEVI, WIFE OF ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA 2. SHIVRANI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE ARUN KUMAR GUPTA. BOTH DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF BASO SAO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAUGAIN, P.S. RAUSHANGANJ, DISTRICT GAYA. ----- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION, MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA. 4. THE CONSOLIDATION OFFICER, AAMAS, P.S. AAMAS, DISTRICT GAYA. 5. KHELAWAN SAO, SON OF LATE BIHARI SAO 6. BABULAL SAO 7. ARJUN SAO, BOTH SONS OF PARAN SAO 8. SHIVNANDAN SAO, SON OF LATE DASHRATH SAO RESPONDENT NOS. 5 TO 8 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHEBARI, P.S. ROSHANGANJ, DISTRICT GAYA. ----- RESPONDENTS ----------- 4 19.7.2010 The admitted case of the parties is that in the cadastral survey the land was recorded in the name of Mutur Teli the ancestors of the petitioners and Mangru Sao the ancestors of the respondents. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents shifted out of the village and relinquished their share. The names of the petitioners were recorded in the revisional survey as a result of which the petitioners were recorded in the revisional survey. When the consolidation proceeding started the respondents did not appear and file their objection. The Joint Director on the basis of the fact that the petitioners’ and the respondents’ ancestors were recorded in the cadastral survey has given equal share to the petitioners and the respondents which according to the petitioners is unjustified as the respondents have no interest in the lands in question. The case of the respondents on the other hand is that the petitioners have taken advantage of the fact that the respondents live out of the village and have got their name recorded in the revisional survey. It is stated that they were in a better position to pursue the 2 consolidation proceedings. It was only when the respondents heard about the adverse orders passed in the consolidation proceeding, they moved the Joint Director under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. This Court finds that in a case of this nature, it would be essential for the petitioners to lead evidence to show that the respondents had relinquished their rights in the property or that there was a partition between family and the respondents had the share in the lands in question. In any event, the writ Court cannot decide such disputed questions of title. The aggrieved party may approach the Court of competent jurisdiction to decide the question of title in this case. This application is thus disposed of. The order impugned dated 13.5.2008 passed in Revision Case No. 24 of 2008 will be subject to the result of the suit, if any. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)