Letters Patent Appeal No.947 OF 2002 ******* Against the judgment dated 09th August, 2002, passed in C.W.J.C. no. 1851 of 2000. ******* 1.PARAS NATH RAI, S/O LATE SESH NATH RAI, 2. KAMALAWATI KUER ALIAS DEVI WIFE OF LATE RAMESHWAR RAI, 3.RAM AUTAR RAI, 4.RAM BACHAN RAI, 5.SACHCHIDANAND RAI, ALL S/O SRI KAMTA RAI, R/O VILLAGE- KATRA KALAN, P.S. MOHANIA, DISTRICT- ROHTAS. ---------------- APPELANTS Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.THE DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, BIHAR PATNA. 4.THE CONSOLIDATION OFFICER, MOHANIA (ROHTAS) --RESPONDENTS (1ST SET) 5.BASHISHTH RAI, S/O NOT KNOWN 6.UMA SHANKAR RAI, 7.SANJAY RAI BOTH S/O SRI BASHISHTH RAI, R/O VILLAGE- DUMDUMA, P.S. KUTHANI (RAMGARH), DISTRICT- ROHTAS. --RESPONDENTS(2ND SET) ******* FOR THE APPELLANTS : M/s Rama Kant Sharma, Rajesh Kumar & Manish Kumar FOR THE RESPONDENTS : M/s K.P. Gupta, SC 16, Binod Kumar,AC to SC 16 2 P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. T. MEENA KUMARI THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA T. Meena Kumari & Akhilesh Chandra, JJ. The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC no. 1851 of 2000 dated 09th August, 2002 wherein the learned single Judge has chosen to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority recorded the findings and had refused to interfere with the relief sought by the appellants herein. 2. The case of the appellants is that respondent no.5 in the writ petition, Umrawati Devi, is not the daughter of Dhyani Rai. 3. It is contended that the lands in dispute belonged to the share of the appellants herein. But, however, it has been recorded by the learned single Judge that on earlier occasion Partition Suit has been filed by the inter party wherein the appellants herein were also a minor and the said Dhyani Rai was also a 3 party to the suit. The said suit, filed by the appellants herein as the minors, wherein it was recorded that Umrawati Devi was the daughter of Dhyani Rai, was dismissed. Against the said order Title Appeal no.30 of 1968 has been filed and the same was dismissed on two grounds; non- prosecution of the appeal by the appellants and the appeal has been abated. When the matter came up for hearing under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, the revisional / appellate authorities have taken note of the judgment rendered by the earlier courts and chosen to dismiss the same. However, the learned single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, has also noted that the appellate / revisional authorities have dismissed the appeal giving concurrent findings in favour of respondent no.5 in the writ petition. We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. 4. However, the learned counsel for the appellants has sought liberty of this Court to raise the objections, raised in this appeal, before 4 appropriate Forum, if the party so chose, as the litigation between the parties is civil in nature. Regarding the submissions, we are of the opinion that the liberty can be granted to the appellants to raise objections, raised herein, before the appropriate Forum where the matter is pending. Such objection, if any raised before the authority, will be decised in accordance with law. 5. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed, with the above observations. (T. Meena Kumari, J.) Patna High Court, The 02nd May, 2011. AAhmad/AFR ( Akhilesh Chandra, J.)