IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17215 of 2010 1. BABAN MISHRA SON OF LATE HAR NARAYAN MISHRA 2. Jhulan mishra son of late har narayan mishra. 3. ram bihari mishra@ pauhari sharan mishra son of late BHRIGUNATH MISHRA. 4. PAYHARI MISHRA @ PAUHARI SHARAN MISHRA SON OF LATE BHRIGUNATH MISHRA. 5. SHOBHA MISHRA SON OF LATE BHRIGUNATH MISHRA. 6. RAJANDHARI MISHRA @ RAJENDRADHARI MISHRA SON OF LATE RAM BHAROSA MISHRA. 7. RAJESH MISHRA SONOF LATE RAM BHAROSA MISHRA. 8. DINESH MISHRA SON OF LATE RAM BHAROSA MISHRA. 9. RADHE SHYAM MISHSRA SON OF LATE SUKH NANDAN MISHRA. 10. BADRI MISHRA SON OF LATE SUKH NANDAN MISHRA. 11. RAMA SHANKAR MISHRA SON OF LATE MUNNI MISHRA. 12. UMA SHANKAR MISHRA SON OF LATE MUNNI MISHRA. 13. BIRENDRA MISHRA SON OF LATE PANCHA MISHRA. 14. DILIP MISHRA SON OF LATE PANCHA MISHRA 15. RAJDEO MISHRA SON OF LATE RAM NARAYAN MISHRA. 16. KASHI NATH MISHRA SON OF LATE RAM NARAYAN MISHRA. 17. PUJARI MISHRA SON OF LATE RAM NARAYAN MISHRA. 18. RAM CHIJ MISHRA SON OF LATE YASHODA MISHRA 19. LALLAN MISHRA SON OF LATE YASHODA MISHRA. 20. RAMAYAN MISHRA SON OF LATE ABHAYA RAJ MISHRA 21. KAPILDEO MISHRA SON OF LATE LAXMI MISHRA 22. BINOD MISHRA SON OF LATE LAXMI MISHRA. 2 ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MUSHAHARI, P.O. & P.S.- KATEYA. DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ (BIHAR). Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, MUZAFFARPUR, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION, SIWAN, DISTRICT- SIWAN. 4. THE CONSOLIDATION OFFICER, KATEYA, BLOCK & CIRCLE AND P.S.- KATEYA, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ. 5. ILLAQUAT ZOLHA SON OF LATE HISAMUDDIN ZOLHA. 6. NOORA ZOLHA SON OF LATE HISAMMUDIN ZOLHA. 7. OLAYAT ZOLHA SON OFLATE HISAMUDDIN ZOLHA. RESPONDENT NOS. 5 TO 7 ARE THE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MUSHAHARI P.O. AND P.S.- KATEYA, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ. ----------- 4 09.12.2010 Heard both the parties. Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 17.02.2009 passed by respondent Joint Director Consolidation, Muzaffarpur in revision case no. 94 of 2008 (Annexure-5) whereby the appellate order dated 16.10.2008 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation, Siwan, in Consolidation Appeal No. 20 of 2008 (Annexure-4) was upheld. Let it be recorded that the first Court i.e., Consolidation officer, Kateya, Gopalganj also refused to grant any relief in favour of the petitioner as would appear from Annexure-3. Disputed land pertains to Khata no. 27, Thana no. 156, Khisra nos. 54, 55, 56, 57, 207, 208, 216, 217, 264, 274, 275, 276 and 277 3 measuring a total area 4 Bighas 18 Khatas 10 dhurs, of land situated in the district of Gopalganj. After hearing the parties, this Court finds that there is a serious dispute with regard to title/possession of the land in question. Petitioners claim title/possession over the land by reason of certain entries made in the remark column of the Survey Khatiyan being Jarpeshgi in possession of the land as well as Mustari. Admittedly the mortgage as well as sale was not registered. They continued to obtain that status till the orders impugned passed by the authorities under the Consolidation Act. It is the case of the petitioners that entries made in the remark column of the Survey khatiyan would demonstrate that the disputed land belonged to them. On the other hand, case of the respondents is based on entries made in owners column of the Khatiyan. It further appears that both the parties are also relying on rent receipts. The case of the respondents is that their name stood recorded in the Survey Khatiyan as owners in respect of the disputed land. The case of the writ petitioners appears to be that they came in possession by reason of certain sale and mortgage made in favour of 4 their ancestors. Respondent joint Director, on a consideration of the materials on record and after hearing the parties, found as under:- **vkosnd x.k fo”kqu feJk ds mRrjkf/kdkjh gS tcfd izfri{khx.k beke tksygk ds mRrjkf/kdkjh gSA beke tksygk ds nks iq= gS Qkxw tksygk ,oa gSor tksygk FksA Qkxw tksygk ,oa gSor tksygk oYn beke tksygk ds uke ls lkfcd losZ ntZ gS bl izdkj fookfnr Hkwfe dk lkfcd losZ izfri{khx.k ds iwoZtks ds uke ls ntZ gSA gky losZ es Hkh fookfnr tehu eYyw tksygk oYn Qkxw tksygk fcgkjh tksygk oYn gSor tksygk cfgLls cjkcj djds ntZ gS bl izdkj gky losZ Hkh izfri{kx.k ds iwoZtks ds uke ls gh gqvk gSA** Impugned order is also challenged on the ground that no inspection was made before passing the impugned order which is in gross violation of Section 10(7) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation Act 1956. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand referring to the averments made in para 13 of 5 the counter affidavit, submits that local inspection was made in the matter by the authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Section 103B of the B.T Act submits that entries in the remark column of Survey Khatiyan raise a presumption of law. Learned counsel for the respondents disputes the said submission and asserts that such presumption is rebuttable. Names of the ancestors were found recorded in the column no. 2 of the Khatiyan, which continued to remain. Having appreciated the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court is of the view that the present case is not such where the plenary jurisdiction of the Court can be invoked to grant the relief(s) prayed for in the application. Suffice is to observe that parties in view of serious dispute with regard to title and possession over the land in question are of liberty to approach Court of competent civil jurisdiction for redressal of grievance(s). Amrendra (K.K. Mandal, J.,)