IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11869 of 2008 RAJENDRA SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 14.05.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for the state. Petitioners have filed this application for quashing the order dated 05.05.2008 passed by Director, Consolidation , Magadh Division, Gaya in Revision Case No. 33/08. By this order, the claim of the petitioners regarding additional 5 1/2 decimals of land in the Chak allotted in his favour, has been rejected. Petitioners’ case is that the petitioners and respondents , both have common ancestors and as such, they are entitled for equal share in the ancestral property. Chak Khata No. 61 and 105, Chak Plot No. 574, 582 & 583 were prepared from lands of C.S. Plot No. 538, R.S. Plot Nos. 727 and 718 having an area of 12 decimals, 10 decimals and 11 decimals respectively, total 33 decimals. Petitioners as well as Respondents are entitled for 16 ½ decimals of land but Chak allotted in the share of petitioners, according to Chak map only 11 decimals have been allotted to his share and map of Chak allotted to respondents have been prepared for 22 decimals. It was mandatory to get the Chaks re-measured, demarcated and then allotted in the share of the petitioners as well as the respondents. The revisional court ignoring the claim of the - 2 - petitioners and without considering Ameen’s report has passed the impugned order. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the revisional court has considered claim of the petitioners and it is the finding that Plot No. 359, measuring 11 decimals from which Chak Plot No. 583 was constituted, in fact is the land purchased by the respondents from their own source of income and the ancestors of the petitioners as well as petitioners have no claim for that property. The difference which is there in the area allotted to the petitioners and the respondents, is not because of none-measurement of area but considering their entitlement, I find that at this stage, the objection raised by the petitioners regarding preparation of Chak map and area allotted to the petitioners, is not entertainable considering the fact that no such objection was raised at the initial stage. However, if the petitioners have still some grievance, they have remedy before the competent civil court. They may approach the appropriate forum. But so far the impugned order is concerned; I do not find any error. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. akv (Mridula Mishra, J.)