IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8956 of 2009 Awadh Narayan Singh, son of Late Bigan Singh @ Bijan Singh, village Bajerkona, PS Kudra, district Kaimur – Petitioner. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. The Collector, Kaimur at Bhabhua. 3. The Dy. Collector Land Reforms, Mohania, District Kaimur. 4. The Circle Officer, Kudra, Dist. Kaimur. 5. Jagdish Singh, 6. Kapil Singh, 7. Rishi Muni Singh, all sons of Gorakh Singh, 8. Gorakh Singh, son of Late Shibachan Singh, 9. Shailendra Singh, 10.Upendra Singh, both sons of Late Gupteshwar Singh, all of village Bajerkona, PS Kudra, district Kaimur – Respondents. 2 30.7.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has challenged the order, dated 27.10.2008 passed in Mutation Revision Case No. 13/2005- 06/38/2008-09 and the order, dated 22.7.2000 passed by the Circle Officer, Kudra in Misc. Case No. 2/2000-01. The case of the petitioner is that according to the genealogical table he would be entitled to half of the share of the lands in dispute. The petitioner had filed a title suit for partition which was dismissed. Against the dismissal order he filed a title appeal which abated because of the proceeding under the Consolidation Act. The matter went before the Consolidation officer and thereafter the Khatiyan was prepared in the name of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he could not appear before the Consolidation Officer because he was not aware of the proceeding. In any event the petitioner did not take any step to challenge the order passed by the Consolidation officer. Thereafter in 2 the present proceeding for correction of Jamabandi, the petitioner has taken a stand that he is entitled to half of the share and his name should be mutated claiming that the name of the respondents has wrongly been entered in Register II. The Circle officer dismissed the application whereas the Dy. Collector Land Reforms considered the genealogical table and allowed the prayer. The revisional court has set aside the order of the Dy. Collector Land Reforms and upheld the order passed by the Circle officer on the ground that the petitioner may not claim for correction of Jamabandi at this stage for the reason that there is a judgment of the civil court and an order by the consolidation authority in favour of the respondents. In my view the orders contained in Annexures 1 and 3 are based on cogent reasons and the petitioner did not have any remedy unless he had challenged the orders of the Consolidation Officer. Counsel for the petitioner submits that an observation may be given by this court that he should be permitted to file a suit for cancellation of jamabandi. This court cannot issue any such direction or grant leave in favour of the petitioner that is not to say that a citizen cannot take recourse to legal remedies without a direction given by the Court. This writ petition is dismissed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)