IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3377 of 2010 THAGA DAS @ THAGA SINGH S/O LATE JURI SINGH, CHELA RUDAL SINGH @ RUDAL DAS KABIR PANTHI MATH, HANUMAN NAGAR, AT & P.O.- BATHNAHA, P.S.- BATHNAHA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION MUZAFFARPUR 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION SITAMARHI 4. THE CONSOLIDATION OFFICER AT P.O. AND ANCHAL & P.S.- NATHNAHA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 5. SRI RAM VIVEK DAS CHELA LATE RAM SARAN DAS AT P.S. & P.O.- BATHNAHA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI, KABIR PANTHI MATH, DISTT.- SITAMARHI For the Petitioner : Mr. Narayan Singh, Sr. Adv. For the State : Mrs. Vandana Singh, AC to GP-20. For Respondent No.5 : M/s. S. Nath, Chandrakant, Advocates. ----------- 08. 14.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the counsel for private respondent no.5. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.8.2009 passed by the Joint Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur in Revision Case No.01 of 2009, Annexure-1, whereunder revision application filed by private respondent no.5 has been allowed. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that while setting aside the order dated 3.12.2008, Annexure-2 passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Sitamarhi, the Joint Director had no occasion to notice the contents of sale deed dated 27.7.1920 as petitioner in spite of notice could not appear before the Joint Director. Had the Joint Director noticed the contents of sale deed dated 27.7.1920 he would have been satisfied that the lands of cadastral survey plot no.9359 was sold in its entirety by the ancestors of private respondent no.5 as from the boundary of the lands sold under the said sale deed itself it would appear that the vendor had sold his entire interest in the said plot. 3. Aforesaid submission of the counsel for the petitioner is being disputed by the counsel for private respondent no.5. He states that - 2 - contents of sale deed dated 27.7.1920 may not decide the extent of right and interest of the petitioner in plot no.9359 as according to counsel for private respondent no.5 ancestors of respondent no.5 had not sold the entire interest in the said plot and he is still in possession of the lands of the said plot, which has been recorded in his name during the consolidation operation. 4. Counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submitted that the survey entries have presumptive value of correctness and unless the same is questioned in the civil court of competent jurisdiction there is presumption of correctness about the entries made by the survey authorities. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case of the parties, I set aside the order of the Joint Director dated 17.8.2009 passed in Revision Case No.01 of 2009, Annexure-1 and direct the petitioner and private respondent no.5 to appear before the Joint Director on 7.6.2010, whereafter the Joint Director shall hear the parties after giving them a date of their choice and dispose of Revision Case No.01 of 2009 afresh taking into account the contents of the sale deed dated 27.7.1920 and the deed of exchange dated 5.1.1915 as also the other documents, as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of appearance of the parties before him. 6. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J. )