IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.10751 OF 2009 (1) MD.FAZLE ALAM (2) MD. MUNEER ASLAM (3) MD. TANVEER ALAM (4) MD. MUMTAZ ALAIM (5) ANWARI KHATOON (6) QAMAR SULTANA (7) AZRA KHATOON ( 1 TO 4 ARE SONS & 5 TO 7 ARE DAUGHTERS OF LATE SK. ABUL KHAIR) VERSUS (1) THE STATE OF BIHAR (2) THE DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION (3) THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION, SASARAM (4) THE CONSOLIDATION OFFICER, DAWATH, SASARAM (5) BIBI KHAIRUNNISSA W/O MD YUNUS KHAN (6) BIBI TAIBUNISSA W/O LATE SK SHARFUDDIN @ BACHU. ----------- 2 31.08.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner prays for quashing order dated 10/20.12.1996, passed by Consolidation officer, Dawath in Case no. 1 of 1996-97 as well as order dated 11.7.1997, passed by Asstt Director, Sasaram in Appeal no. 25 of 1997 and order dated 11.6.2008, passed by Joint Director, Chakbandi in Revision case no. 278 of 1997. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that lands described in paragraphs 4 & 5 of the writ petition are their ancestral lands as the original owner of those lands was one Sk. Nawab who had left two sons and a daughter, namely, Sk. Imdad Hussain, Sk. Bhikari and Bibi Saidunnisa, out of whom Bibi Saidunnissa died issueless. Thus the land had been recorded in cadastral survey in the - 2 - name of the two brothers. Sk. Imdad Hussain died in year 1950 leaving behind a son and three daughters, namely, Sk. Abul Khair ( father of all the petitioners), Bibi Khairunnissa (opposite party number 1), Bibi Taibunnissa (opposite party number 2) and Bibi Naimunnissa, who inherited his property. Petitioners state that there was amicable partition in 1961, whereafter some of the lands detailed in para 10 of writ petition were purchased by Sk. Imdad Hussain, grand father of petitioners.However, much later, on 12.5.1976 Bibi Khairunnissa, respondent no.5 filed an objection under section 10(2) of the Consolidation Act, claiming 1/4th share in entire property, which was heard and rejected by Consolidation officer, Bikramganj on 19.7.1976. Thereafter, respondent no.5, instead of preferring appeal, filed Title suit No. 386 of 1976 staking the same claim in the property in question. Late Abul Khair, father of petitioners filed objection on 9.8.1977 that suit abated in view of section 4(C) of Consolidation Act. Consequently the learned Sub- judge, Sasaram held in order dated 6.10.1977 that suit abates under section 4(C) of the Act. Thereafter on 8.10.1977, respondent no.5 belatedly filed consolidation appeal no. 198 of 1977 which was allowed and the matter - 3 - was remanded to Consolidation court vide order dated 6.2.1984 contained in annexure 3. Consolidation officer, ultimately by order dated 10/20 December, 1996 allowed the application. The appeal and revision prepared by petitioners against the order of Consolidation officer also failed. Main contention of petitioners is that they were having two sets of lands, one set of land were ancestral land belonging to Sk. Imdad Hussain and Sk. Bhikari, whereas the other set of land was self purchased land of Sk. Imdad Hussain, which are being claimed by petitioners in this writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the revisional court by ignoring aforesaid aspect has dismissed revision application. It appears that respondent no.5 has already filed a Title suit in respect of claim which has abated as held by order of Sub-judge, Sasaram in his order dated 6.10.1997. In case, respondent no.5 does not pursue the title suit, then it would be open to the petitioners to file a fresh Title suit, as such, complicated question of facts and title could be best decided in a court of competent civil jurisdiction. - 4 - Needless to state that orders of Consolidation authorities is subject to decision of civil courts. The writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)