IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9570 of 2008 1. Md. Salauddin. 2. Md. Haidar Ali. 3. Sk. Alamgir. 4. Md. Jahangeer. 5. Md. Chand. 6. Mohammad Ali. 7. Md. Saklain. All are sons of Late Ali Hasan, All are residents of Village- Halai Punarbas, P.S.- Mahishi, Post Office- Manowar, District- Saharsa……………………………………………Petitioners. -Versus- 1. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Department of Land Reforms, Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Saharsa. 3. The Land Settlement Officer, Saharsa. 4. The Revenue Officer, Saharsa. 5. Jamil Ahmad Khan, Son of Jahirulhaque Khan, resident of Village- Jalai, Police Station- Mahishi, District- Saharsa. at present resident of Village- Khajuurar, Post Office- Khajurar, Police Station- Barh, District- Patna……………….Respondents. ----------- 2. 29.04.2009. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and counsel appearing for the State. Petitioners’ prayer is for quashing the order dated 09.01.2008 passed in Revision Case No. 04 of 2004, whereby the Land Settlement Officer, Saharsa, has directed to cancel the name of recorded tenants from the records of rights and quashed the order dated 25.10.1997 passed in Case No. 11468 of 1986. Petitioners are claiming to be the sons of settles in whose favour ex-landlord has settled the disputed lands. Petitioners’ case is that at the time of vesting of the Estate, the Ex-landlord had filed return in the name of the settles and accordingly, the name of settles (father of the petitioners), Khata No. - 2 - 27 was opened and he started making payment of rent to the State and now it is being done by the petitioners. In spite of that in the revisional survey the name of one Jamil Ahmad Khan got entered in the records of rights. Petitioners filed an application under Section 106 of the B. T. Act bearing Case No. 11468/106 of 1986 which was allowed by order dated 25.10.1997, and a direction was made for correction in the Khata in favour of the petitioners. Subsequently, the present respondent no.5 who was not even made a party in Case No. 11468/106 of 1986, filed a revision under Section 108 of the B. T. Act numbered as Revision No 4 of 2004 and the earlier order passed in favour of the petitioners under Section 106 of the B. T. Act was quashed and a direction was issued for cancellation of petitioners’ name from the records of the rights. I find no reason for interfering with such orders which can finally be considered and decided by the civil court of competent jurisdiction. The aggrieved party can approach the civil court by filing a suit for correction of wrong entry in the survey records of rights. The writ court can not decide such matter. Petitioners if so advised, may approach the competent civil court. This writ application is disposed of. U.K. (Mridula Mishra,J)