IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9440 of 2008 1. Md. Hidar Ali. 2. Md. Ali. 3. Md. Sallauddin. 4. Md. Chand. 5. Md. Alamgir. 6. Md. Jahangir. 7. Md. Saklain. All are sons of late Daniyal Ali @ Ali Hassan, residents of Villae- Jalai Punarbas, Post Office- Manowar, Police Station- Mahishi, District- Saharsa………………………….Petitioners. -Versus- 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Land Reforms, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Saharsa. 3. The Revenue Officer Survey, Saharsa. 4. Md. Yunush son of Md. Jalil. 5. Bibi Samida Khatoon, wife of Md. Yunush. 4 and 5 are residents of Village- Kumrar, Post Office- Arrapatti, Police Station-Mahishi, District- Saharsa. 6. Ravindra Narayan Jha. 7. Girindra Narayan Jha. 8. Abnindra Narayan Jha. Sons of Kamal Narayan Jha Kamlesh. 9. Shivendra Narayan Jha. 10. Yogendra Narayan Jha. 11. Kavindra Narayan Jha. Sons of Radha Kant Jha. 6 to 11 are residents of Village- Kena, Police Station- Singhiya, District- Samastipur………………………………….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 04.01.2008 passed in Revision Case No. 56/108 of 2003, whereby the Settlement Officer, Saharsa, has directed to cancel the name of recorded tenants from the records of rights and confirmed the order passed in Case No. 4885 of 1986. This order has been passed by the - 2 - Settlement Officer, Saharsa, in Case No. 1904/106 of 1986. Petitioners are claiming to be the sons of settle in whose favour ex- landlord has settled the disputed lands. Petitioners’ case is that at the time of vesting of the State, the Ex-landlord had filed returns in the name of the settle and accordingly, the name of settle (father of the petitioners), Khata No. 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 one Ravindra Narayan Jha and others got entered their names in the records of rights. Petitioners filed an application under Section 106 of the B. T. Act bearing Case No. 1904/106 of 1986 which was allowed by order dated 31.7.2002, and a direction was made for correction in the Khata in favour of the petitioners. Subsequently, the present respondent nos. 4 and 5, who were not even parties in Case No. 1904/106 of 1986, filed a revision under Section 108 of the B. T. Act numbered as Revision Case No. 56/ 108 of 2003 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 do not find any reason to interfere with such orders which should be 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 matters. Petitioners if so advised, may approach the competent civil - 3 - court. This writ application is disposed of. U.K. (Mridula Mishra,J)