IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10104 of 2010 1. MADHURANI DEVI W/O RAJ NARAYAN SINGH R/O VILL MASARHI, P.S.FATUHA (AT PRESENT GAURICHAK), DISTT-PATNA VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS PATNA CITY, PATNA 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER FATUHA, PATNA 5. RAJA RAM SINGH S/O LATE BABU RAM SINGH R/O VILL MASARHI, P.S.FATUHA (AT PRESENT GAURICHAK), DISTT-PATNA 6. RANA RAGHO RAM SINGH S/O LATE BABU RAM SINGH R/O VILL MASARHI, P.S.FATUHA (AT PRESENT GAURICHAK), DISTT-PATNA 7. PANCHO DEVI W/O LATE JAIRAM SINGH R/O VILL MASARHI, P.S.FATUHA (AT PRESENT GAURICHAK), DISTT-PATNA ********** 2 05/07/2010 The petitioner claims that her mother-in-law had purchased plot nos. 2456, 2457, 2458 and 2485 of Khata No. 3, Tauzi No. 120 of village Ismailpur, Masaurhi by registered sale deed dated 19.04.1926. The case is that there was a partition in the year 1976 and in the partition, the lands were allocated to the petitioner. An application was filed in the year 2008 for mutating the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. After the order of mutation, respondent no. 5 filed an objection. The case of the private respondents is that the sale deed wrongly show plot no. 2460. It is also urged on their behalf that the said partition is completely forged and that the petitioner were never in possession over the 2 said lands. It is also stated that the names of the respondents were also recorded in the revenue records. A title suit has been filed by the private respondents to set aside the sale deed. The Circle Officer and the Deputy Collector Land Reforms had held in favour of the private respondents. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms had further held that the private respondents are in possession on the basis of the report of the Halka Karamchari, Circle Inspector and the evidence of certain villagers. Once, complicated questions of facts are raised on behalf of the parties, these facts necessarily have to be decided in a suit. As far as the issuance of rent receipts are concerned, they would be subject to the ultimate result of the suit. It is further clarified that the order of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms and for that matter, the Circle Officer is obviously not binding on the Trial Court. The parties would be free to lead evidence and it goes without saying that the Trial Court will consider the evidence, both oral and documentary, on its own merits. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )