IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7772 of 2008 Mubarak Khan, S/o Late Riasat Khan, resident of Village- Bairiya, Tola, Hussainpur, P.O. Bairi Anchal, Kataiya in the District of Gopalganj. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Joint Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur. 3. Dy. Director, Consolidation, Siwan. 4. Consolidation Officer Block Kataiya Gopalganj. 5. Rakesh Mishra 6. Munna Mishra 7. Brijesh Mishra All sons of Late Sri Niwas Mishra. 8. Nand Kishore Mishra 9. Jai Ram Mishra 10. Nanka Mishra All sons of Late Sheonath Mishra, All resident of Village- Pakari mishrain, P.O. Bariya Anchal, Katiya in the District of Gopalganj. ----------- For the petitioner : 1. Mr. Ashutosh Jha 2. Mr. Narendra Pandey Advocates. For the respondents : 1. Sandeep Kumar 2. Dhananjay Upadhyay 3. A.K. Bhaskar Advocates. 4. 05.07.2010 The petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.12.2007 passed by the Joint Director, Consolidation, respondent No.2. The case of the respondents is that the son of Dwarika Mishra-respondent No.4 had executed the deed of 2 mortgage in favour of Shivvaran Lohar in the year 1915. It is stated that in the year 1929, the mortgage deed was redeemed by Dwarika Mishra and after the redemption Dwarika Mishra has come into possession of the said land. The petitioner’s case is that the 1915 deed was not the mortgage deed but it was the sale deed executed in favour of Shivvaran Lohar and Shivvaran Lohar sold the land to Sheikh Hussaini and thereafter the petitioner eventually purchased the land in the year 1984. The petitioner’s name was recorded in the Jamabandi and he has been paying rent to the State of Bihar. The deed of 1915 has not been brought on record as the ground has been taken on behalf of the opposite party- respondent that the house of Dwarika Mishra was burnt by the British during the movement for independence. It is also a fact that the respondents have not brought on record the 1915 document which would show the title of Shivvaran Lohar. It is presumed that the petitioner has brought on record the sale deed to show that he has validly purchased the land in question from Sheikh Farzand. The petitioner however, has not brought on record the first sale deed i.e. the sale deed by which Shivvaran 3 Lohar had sold the land to Sheikh Hussaini. It has been recorded in the order of the D.C.L.R. that the Jamabandi was in the name of Sheikh Mubarak Khan i.e. the petitioner. On perusal of the order of the D.C.L.R. and the order passed by the Joint Director, Consolidation, it appears that there are certain uncertainties in the orders. For example, the Court ought to have examined the original Jamabandi register to ascertain in whose name have been recorded in Register II and who was paying the rent since 1929, when it is said that the land were redeemed by the Dwarika Mishra from Shivvaran Lohar. It would also be proper for the Joint Director to examine the original sale deed executed by Shivvaran Lohar in the name of Sheikh Hussaini and the sale deed executed by Sheikh Hussaini in the name of Surayabali. I find that a number of deeds have been mentioned in the order-sheet, which would need to be substantiated by the respondents. Therefore, I remand back the matter to the Joint Director, Consolidation to come to a conclusion after examining the records on the following points: (a) the Jamabandi register; (b) the sale deed executed by Shivvaran Lohar in favour of Sheikh Hussaini; 4 (c) the sale deed executed by Sheikh Hussaini in favour of Suryabali; (d) the sale deed executed by Surabali in favour of Sheikh Farzand; and (e) the sale deed executed by Sheikh Farzand in favour of the petitioner Sheikh Mubarak. The Joint Director, Consolidation is also directed to call for the register of sale deeds from the registry concerned, in case, the parties are not able to produce the records and, finally the records of the mutation case which would indicate the manner in which the name of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue records. The case should be disposed of within a period of six months on receipt or production of this order by either of the parties. The order dated 10.12.2007 is quashed and writ disposed of with the aforesaid observations. S.S. (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)