IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9985 of 2001 NATHUNI DUSADH @ NATHUNI PASWAN & ANR. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioners :Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent nos. 4 to 6 :M/s Suresh Chandra Giri & P.K.Sinha, Advocates 04/ 18.9.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State and the private Respondent nos. 4 to 6, who are the heirs of Ramdaiya, said to be another daughter of Jhimal Dusadh whose grandsons from daughter Malki are the petitioners. 2. Petitioners are questioning the correctness and validity of the order dated 12.7.2000, passed by the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna, as contained in Annexure-2 to this writ application, who relying on the survey entry, which is akin to record of rights under Section 8 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) held that private Respondent nos. 4 to 6 being the descendants of Ramdaiya, another daughter of Jhimal Dusadh are entitled to half interest in the property of Jhimal Dusadh. Such finding is being questioned by the petitioners on the ground that the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna was not competent to hold that Ramdaiya was another daughter of Jhimal Dusadh as such finding can only be recorded by the competent Civil Court and for such declaration, they have already filed Title Suit No. 96 of 1997, which is pending in the Court of Subordinate Judge I, Bhabua. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the aforesaid suit is not making any progress as private Respondent nos. 4 to 6 have filed a petition in the said suit praying inter alia to direct that the suit has abated in - 2 - the light of the provisions contained in Sub-Section (c ) of Section 4 of the Act. In this background, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they have no remedy to assail the erroneous survey entry recording Ramdaiya as another daughter of Jhimal Dusadh. 4. Counsel for the private Respondent nos. 4 to 6 has opposed the submission made on behalf of the petitioners. He states that the aforesaid suit has not abated and shall never abate as thereunder prayer to decide the status of Ramdaiya has been made. 5. In view of the submission made on behalf of the parties, this Court holds that Title Suit No. 96 of 1997, pending in the Court of Subordinate Judge I, Bhabua shall not abate as thereunder prayer is to decide the status of Ramdaiya as to whether she is the daughter of Jhimal Dusadh. 6. In the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of observing that the survey entry on the basis of which impugned order dated 12.7.2000, Annexure-2 has been passed, shall be subject to the result of Title Suit No. 96 of 1997 and until disposal of the said title suit, neither of the parties shall sell the lands in question. 7. Petitioners and private Respondent nos. 4 to 6 are directed to appear in the Title Suit No. 96 of 1997 on day to day basis and the Subordinate Judge I, Bhabua is directed to take up the suit on priority basis and dispose of the same as early as possible, in any case within one year from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Arjun/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)