IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3988 of 2006 GANESH MEHTA, SON OF LATE LIRO MEHTA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KACHAVA, PANCHAYAT KADHAIYA, P.S. SOUR BAZAR, DISTRICT- SAHARSA :---PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAHARSA. 3. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, SAHARSA. 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, SOUR BAZAR, SAHARSA. 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SOUR BAZAR, SAHARSA :--- RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Ram Kishore Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Kundan Bahadur Singh, S.C.-22 -with- Mr. Shakti Suman Kumar, A.C. to S.C.-22. ====== 3. 07.03.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed questioning the caste status of the petitioner and other indicated in the revisional survey khatiyan published on 27th September, 1982 under sub- section (2) of Section 103A of the B.T. Act indicating him and others as Kurmi although the caste status of their ancestor has been indicated in the cadastral survey khatiyan as Dhanukh. 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the parties that Section 102 of the B.T. Act provides for particulars to be recorded in the Record of Rights so as to ascertain the name of the tenant or occupant, his raiyati status, quantum of rent etc. including easement rights over the land. The - 2 - caste status is not required to be entered in the record of rights (khatiyan) and any such entry made ignoring the earlier entry in the record of rights shall not bind the petitioner and others. 4. I see substance in the submission made by the parties and, accordingly, direct that the caste status of the petitioner and others as indicated in the continuous khatiyan published on 27th September, 1982 shall not be taken into account for granting them caste certificate. 5. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)