IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4518 of 2008 1. UMA SHANKAR SINGH , son of Muni Singh 2. Sri Ram Singh 3. Ramakant Singh 4. Uma Kant Singh sons of Ram Pati Singh 5. Shyam Sundar Singh 6. Santosh Singh @ Santosh Kumar Singh sons of Radha Singh 7. Kaushlaya Devi wife of Ramjee Singh 8. Rati Deo Tiwary 9. Raghubansh Tiwari 10. Haribansh Tiwari 11. Brajesh Tiwari 12. Dharmendra Tiwari sons of Late Shyam Sundar Tiwari 13. Baleshwar Singh @ Kameshwar Singh 14. Baban Singh sons of Gajadhar Singh 15. Binod Prasad Singh son of Gopal Singh 16. Banarshi Singh son of Ram Shiva Singh 17. Shiv Kumari Devi w/o Ram Shiva Singh 18. Kesho Prasad Singh son of Ram Peyar Singh All R/o village-Kuchhila, P.S. Kuchhila, District-Rohtas ………………………Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Director Consolidation, Bihar, Patna 3. Assistant Director, Consolidation, Rohtas at Sasaram 4. Consolidation Officer, Ramgarh, Kaimur 5. Jagdish Singh 6. Hardish Singh both respondents No. 5 & 6 sons of Deoraj Singh, resident of village-Kuchhila, P.S. Kuchhila, District-Rohtas 7. Bal Munni Singh son of Late Deo Nandan Singh 8. Chandrahash Singh 9. Vishwamitra Singh both sons of Bal Munni Singh Respondents No. 7 to 9 R/o village-Khadawn, P.S. Dinara, Distt. Rohtas ………….. ………………….. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dewedi, Sr. Advocate For the respondents. Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, Sr. Advocate For the State: Mr. Ritesh Kumar, A.C. to AAG-1 4. 29.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the state. This writ application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 08.02.2008 passed by the 2 Director, Consolidation, Bihar , Patna in Consolidation Revision No. 49/02 and order dated 09.05.2002 passed by the Assistant Director, Consolidation, Rohtas at Sasaram in Consolidation Appeal No. 611/83-84. Further prayer of the petitioners is for restoration of order dated 19.8.83 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Ramgarh in Objection Case No. 31/77-78. Petitioners are claiming their right with respect to the disputed lands on the basis of sale deeds executed by Sitaram Singh @ Bal Karan Singh and his wife, Sheo Kumari. In the instant case, dispute is with respect to 12.77 acres of land of village, Kuchhila, P.S. No. 314, P.S. Ramgarh, District-Kaimur appertaining to R.S. Khata No. 326 R.S. Plot No. 272 measuring 5.24 decimals , plot No. 417 measuring 0.44 decimals, plot No. 467 measuring 0.51 decimals, plot No. 1205 measuring .0.22 decimals, plot No. 1219 measuring 0.28 decimals , Plot No. 1490 measuring 3.03 decimals , plot No. 1491 measuring 0.03 decimals, Plot No. 1602 measuring 1.01 decimals, Plot No. 1640, measuring 1.01 decimals , Plot No. 1646 measuring 0.44 decimals and plot No. 1605 measuring 0.56 decimals, total 12.77 decimals. One, Bujhawan Koiri had a son, namely, Ramanand Koiri, Ramkalia Kumari was his wife. They had a son, namely, Ramsakal Koiri. Ramsakal Koiri had a son namely Satiram Koiri @ Sitaram Koiri who was married to Most. Lachhia. According to the petitioners, Satiram Koiri @ Sitaram Koiri died when 3 Mossomat Lachhia was still a teen-ager. She was re-married with Bal Karan Singh @ Sitaram Singh. Out of this wedlock, she gave birth to four daughters and one son, Ram Keshi Singh. Ram Kalia Kunwar had executed a gift deed in favour of his grandson’s widow Most. Lachhia transferring the disputed lands through registered deed of gift. Most. Lachhia died prior to 1956. Thereafter, Bal Karan @ Sitaram Singh re-married with Sheo Kumari. Ramkeshi Singh, the only son of Most. Lachhia and Balkaran Singh @ Sitaram Singh was not maintaining a good health, entire gifted land to Most. Lachhia was recorded in the name of Ramkeshi Singh during the revisional survey. Ramkeshi Singh had executed several sale deeds in favour of different persons transferring lands recorded in his name. He died in the year, 1979. After his death, the property which was recorded in the name of Ramkeshi Singh was inherited by his father, Balkaran Singh @ Sitaram Singh. His name got mutated in register-II and he also paid rent to the state of Bihar. Sitaram Singh @ Balkaran Singh fell in need of money and executed sale-deeds in favour of the petitioners. One sale deed was executed by Sheo Kumari Devi in favour of petitioner No. 7. The case of respondents No. 7, 8 & 9 who are husband and sons of Sheobachani, sister of Ramkeshi is that genealogical table given by petitioners is not correct. Bujhavan Koiri had a son, Ramanand Koiri, Ram Kalia Kunwar was his wife and Ramsakal Koiri was their son, Ramsakal Koiri pre- 4 deceased his mother. Ramsakal had a son, Satiram @ Sitaram Koiri @ Balkaran and Most. Lachhia was his wife. Satiram @ Sitaram Koiri @ Balkaran and Most. Lachhia had one son, Ramkeshi Singh and two daughters. One daughter died and another daughter was Sheo Bachani Devi. Satiram Singh @ Sitaram Singh @ Balkaran Singh died leaving behind his widow, one son and a daughter. Ramkalia Kunwar grand mother of Sitaram @ Sitaram @ Balkaran Singh had executed a gift of deed in favour of Most. Lachhia, her grand sons widow, transferring all her property. Most. Lachhia never re-married to anyone. Balkaran Singh was her servant. Taking advantage of alias name of Satiram Singh @ Sitaram Singh @ Balkaran Singh, the servant Balkaran Singh got his name mutated after death of Ramkeshi and started claiming the disputed property. After death of Ramkeshi, Sheobachani being his sister and only heir inherited entire property. Petitioners or any vendee did not get any title or possession over the land on the basis of sale- deeds executed in their favour by Sitaram @ Balkaran Singh or Sheokumari Devi. Source of title to the disputed property is being claimed by both petitioners and respondents on the basis of deed of gift executed by Ram Kalia Kunwar in favour of Most. Lachhia. Certified copy of gift deed has been produced by the petitioners as well as the respondents but recital in both deeds are different. As per the gift deed produced by the defendants, 5 the donee had three children at the time of execution of the gift deed which means that one son and two daughters were born to Most. Lachhia from Satiram @ Sitaram @ Balkaran. In the certified copy of the gift deed of the petitioners, no such recital is there. Petitioners have challenged the impugned orders on the ground that the documents produced by them were not properly considered by the Assistant Director, Consolidation as well as the Joint Director, Consolidation. It is also one of the ground that hopelessly time barred appeal filed by Respondents was entertained by Assistant Director without condoning the delay ignoring the settled law. It is also submitted by the petitioners’ counsel that the sale-deeds executed by Ramkeshi Singh during his life-time, were also not considered by courts below, where he had given name of his father, as Sitaram Singh @ Balkaran Singh. In the School Leaving Certificate of Ramkeshi Singh also, father’s name has been mentioned as Sitaram Singh @ Balkaran Singh. All these documents which were of unclinching piece of evidence were completely ignored by the courts below. Counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand, stated that the story of second marriage of Most. Lachhia was hatched up by Balkaran Singh. Most Lachhia died in the year, 1963. Ramkeshi Singh was mentally weak, taking advantage of this, Balkaran Singh created several documents. 6 In case Balkaran Singh was husband of Lachhia, then in the revisional survey Khatiyan published in the year, 1970-71 , his name should have been entered as raiyat in respect of lands. During the life-time of father, ancestral property firstly devolves upon father who is the head of the family. But at the time of revisional survey operation, name of Ramkeshi Singh was entered in respect of land in question in R.S. Khatiyan , this shows that he was not married to Lachhia, and was not father of Ramkeshi. What I find that several documents are being relied upon by the parties, claim and counter claims are being made. These matters can be decided only when parties will lead evidence, documents will be proved, exhibited finding would be recorded. Question of title involved in this case cannot be decided by a writ court. Accordingly, this writ application is being disposed of. Any of the parties who will feel requirement to get their title decided, with respect to the disputed land, will approach to the civil court of competent jurisdiction to get the right , title and possession decided over the disputed lands. Present order and the impugned order will not cause any prejudice to the parties. AKV/ ( Mridula Mishra, J )