IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6681 of 2002 NITYANAND PRASAD SINGH son of Late Shivnandan Prasad Singh, resident of village- Sikrahulla, P.S.- Birpur (Barauni) P.O.- Koria Haibatpur, District- Begusarai. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, BEGUSARAI 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, BEGUSARAI 4. THE ANCHALA ADHIKARI, BARAUNI ANCHAL, BARAUNI, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI 5. BHUTTU MAHTON SON OF DHANIK MAHTO 6. JAGDISH MAHTON SON OF LALO MAHTO 7. BAIDYANATH MAHTO @ NAGO MAHTO SON OF BHAGLU MAHTO 8. BRAHMDEO MAHTON 9. RAMO MAHTON BOTH SONS OF LALO MAHTON 10. SITA RAM MAHTON SON OF LALO MAHTON 11. SUKHDEO MAHTON SON OF DHANIK MAHTO 12. KHYALI MAHTO SON OF LALO MAHTO 13. CHANDRADEO MAHTO SON OF LALO MAHTON, RESPONDENTS 5 TO 7 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SIKRAHULLA, NAYA TOLA, RAM NAGAR, P.S.- BIRPUR (BARAUNI) P.O.- KORIA HAIBATPUR, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI. ----------- 5 20.02.2009 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.03.2002 (Annexure-8) passed by the respondent-Additional Collector, Begusarai in Jamabandi Appeal No. 2 of 2001-02, whereby the order dated 16.04.2001 (Annexure-7) passed by the Deputy Collector Land Refoms, Begusarai in Jamabandi Case No. 9 of 2000-01 has been affirmed. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent no.2, the Additional Collector, Begusarai while affirming the order passed by the Deputy collector Land Reforms failed to consider with regard to identity of the land - 2 - itself since the specific case of the petitioner was that the Survey Plot No. 13 is in Khata No. 100 whereas the respondents claim that the said plot is in Khata No.1. Upon hearing the submissions, in my opinion, in order to decide the issue as to whether the Jamabandi should be allowed in favour of the petitioner or the respondents, the prime consideration would be with regard to the identity of the land. The petitioner claims that the aforesaid Khesra No. 13 falls under Khata No. 100 whereas the respondents claim that the same falls under Khata No.1. As such, the respondent no.2 while hearing the appeal should either get the matter enquired through the concerned Circle Officer or remit the matter to the concerned Deputy Collector Land Reforms for arriving at the specific finding on the question of fact which is being disputed by the parties. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.03.2002 (Annexure-8) is, hereby, quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2 for passing a fresh order in accordance with law taking into consideration the observations of the Court as made above expeditiously preferably within a period of four months on receipt/production of the certified copy of the present order. The writ application is disposed of with the above observations/directions. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)