IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3787 of 2003 1. RAM PRASAD @ RAM PRASAD BHAGAT, S/O LATE SANTOKHI BHAGAT. 2. SHEO BACHAN BHAGAT, S/O LATE GANAURI BHAGAT. 3. RAM DAS BHAGAT, S/O LATE SANTOKHI BHAGAT. 4. RAMKRIT BHAGAT, S/O LATE SANTOKHI BHAGAT. 5. KISHORI MOHAN PRASAD, S/O RAMESHWAR BHAGAT. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE/MOHALLA-RAMPUR, P.S.-RAMPUR, DISTRICT-GAYA.……………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. ASSISTANT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, GAYA. 3. SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, GAYA. 4. RAM SEWAK PAL, S/O LATE LALA BHAGAT. 5. RAM KARAN PAL, S/O LATE ALAL BHAGAT. AT PRESENT ADDRESS, MUKHYA SACHETAK OF RULING PARTY, BIHAR LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL,HARDING ROAD, PATNA. 6. JAGDISH BHAGAT, S/O LATE DEONANDAN BHAGAT. ALL NOS. 4 TO 6 ARE R/O OF VILLAGE/MOHALLA- RAMPUR, P.S.-RAMPUR, DISTRICT-GAYA. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 10 28.06.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Petitioners have challenged in this case an order dated 31.05.2002 passed by the Superintendent of Survey under Section 15(1) of the Bihar and Orissa Survey Act in Appeal No. 743 of 1991, by which, the appeal of the appellants (respondents herein) has been allowed. The appellate court has found that the respondents are the heirs of the khatiyani raiyat. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Ram Karan Pal was not an appellant there and only one Jagdish Bhagat was appellant. Therefore, the appellate authority legally could not pass order in respect of Ramsewak Bhat and others. She also submits that deed of gift in her favour was not taken into account by the appellate court. Statement on affidavit has been made by the petitioner in paragraph 15 that the Ram Karan Pal was not an appellant before the appellate court and he had not filed any petition for being added as a party either as appellant or respondent in the appeal nor he was an objector. The memo of appeal filed by the respondents has been annexed by the petitioners as Annexure-8, from which it is clear that besides Jagdish Bhagat, Ram Karan Pal and Ramsewak Bhagat were also co- appellants. The order also shows that it is in respect of mutation of names of the claimant in respect of the particular plot falling within the municipal area in Gaya Municipality. From the order it is clear that this 3 is a dispute of title on the basis of documentary evidence and inheritance. In the circumstances, this Court does not consider it appropriate to go into this issue in a writ proceeding. The writ application is dismissed. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)