IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3203 of 2002 DULARI DEVI WIFE OF Dhanraj Ram, resident of Mohall/village company sarai, ward no.2, Sasaram District-Rohtas. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS 2.The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna Bihar. 3.The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram, District Rohtas. 4.The Charge Officer Cum Superintendent of Survey, Bhojpur and Rohas, District Bhojpur at Arrah. 5.The Anchal Adhikari Sasarm, District Rpohtas. 6.Bishwanath Mahto, Son of Raghunandan Mahto, resident of Mohall Noorangajn Ward no.6 Sasaram, District Rohtas. 7. Sitaram, Son of Late Mohan Ram, resident of Mohall Baulia Ward no.2, Sasara, District Rohtas. ----------- 5 1/5/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by two orders dated 28.11.1998 and 25.9.2000 rejecting objection filed with regard to correction in the municipal survey records and its affirmed in appeal. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner assailing appellate order is that since the objection under section 9 of the Bihar Municipal Survey Act was disposed of by the Collector in the capacity of Charge Officer-Cum- Superintendent of Survey, the view taken by the Commissioner of the Division that an appeal was not maintainable before him, was apparently incorrect. He would submit that the Collector of the district having disposed of an objection, he could not have heard the appeal and that is how Rule 15 of the Bihar Municipal Survey Rules provides forum of appeal before the Commissioner in case such order was passed by the Collector in the capacity of Charge Officer. 2 This Court has looked into the order dated 28.11.1998 passed under Section 9 of the Act and from the same it is very difficult for this Court to come to a conclusion that the aforesaid order was passed by the Collector of the district. That is so, because the person putting signature below the order dated 28.11.1998 has described himself only the Superintendent of Survey and not even a Charge Officer. True it is that the certified copy of the aforesaid order has been issued from the Court of Charge Officer-Cum-Superintendent of Survey, but then to show that the Collector was the Charge Officer and consequently was exercising power of Superintendent of Survey on 28.11.1998 would be a very far fetched conclusion. Thus the view taken by the Commissioner in appeal does not seem to be bad. In any event, this Court had also gone into the merits of the claim of the petitioner and in view of admitted position that the petitioner does not have any other claim for recording her name in Survey records save and except that the land in question was settled in favour of her father-in-law by the Ex-landlord by oral gift/unregistered gift, the entries made in the municipal survey records ignoring such wholly unconfirmed claim from any admitted document cannot be said to be incorrect. At best these Survey entries are only proof of possession, but when petitioner herself claims title of the land on the basis of oral settlement from the ex-landlord, the best recourse for her would be to file a civil suit and get her right and title declared and adjudicated by 3 impleading both the State and Respondents no.6 and 7. It is made clear that in the event the petitioner would file a civil suit before the competent Civil Court, seeking declaration of her title the impugned municipal survey entry in question by itself shall not come in her way in any manner and such Civil Suit will be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced by the petitioner as also the Respondents to this writ application, without being influenced by any observations/findings recorded in the impugned orders and/or this order. With the aforementioned observations, this writ application is finally disposed of. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)