IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.912 of 2011 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9206 of 2005 With Interlocutory Application No. 4008 of 2011 And Interlocutory Application No. 4009 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Bashisth Mishra Mishra 2. Kapileshwar Mishra 3. Veyas Nandan Mishra, sons of late Ramotar Mishra 4. Narad Mishra son of Late Ram Kripal Mishra. 5. Saroj Mishra son of late Ganesh Mishra. All are resident of village Gorapur (Marachi), P.S. Mansoorchak, District- Begusarai. Petitioners- Appellants Versus- 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Additional Collector, Begusarai. 4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Begusarai. 5. Shambhu Jha. 6. Umashankar Jha. 7. Ramashankar Jha. Respondent no. 5 to 7 are sons of late Hari Shankar Jha, resident of village Gorapur (Marachi), P.S. Mansoorchak, Subdivision Teghra, District Begusarai. 8. Mahalakshmi Devi wife of Sri Krishnadeo Jha, All are resident of village Baramotra, P.S. pandaul, District Madhubani. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pawan Kr. Mishra Gp22 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER Patna High Court LPA No.912 of 2011 (4) dt.04-07-2011 2 (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 4 04-07-2011 The delay of 11 days occurred in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the writ petitioners against the judgment and order dated 6th April 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 9206 of 2005. Under the impugned judgment the learned single Judge has refused to interfere with the order of the Board of Revenue dated 17th January 2005 passed in Board Rev. no. 265 of 2000. The dispute is in respect of the possession and title over the suit lands. According to the appellants, the disputed land belonged to the predecessor of the appellants, whereas the Board of Revenue has opined that the claim of respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 seems to be more plausible. The respondent nos. 5 to 7 were found to be in actual possession of the suit land. In view of the concurrent finding recorded by the learned single Judge and the Board of Revenue; the matter at dispute being that of title and possession of the disputed lands, we do not intend to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Interlocutory applications stand Patna High Court LPA No.912 of 2011 (4) dt.04-07-2011 3 disposed of. We clarify that this order shall not preclude the appellants from availing of the remedy before the civil court for setting up the title over the disputed land. If the appellants choose to institute a suit for title and/or for possession, the same will be decided in accordance with law without being influenced by the orders of the revenue authorities or of this Court. BTiwary/ (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)