IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.804 of 2010 1. AMARENDRA KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE JAIMANGAL PD. SINHA R/O VILL- CHANDAULI, P.S. BELSAND, DISTT. SITAMARHI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION, MUZAFFARPUR 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION, SITAMARHI 4. THE CONSOLIDATION OFFICER RUNNISAIDPUR, DISTT. SITAMARHI 5. RAM BABU SAH S/O LATE RAMJI SAH R/O VILL- KHARAKA, P.S. RUNISAIDPUR, DISTT. SITAMARHI 6. MOST. ASHA DEVI W/O LATE RAM NARESH SAH R/O VILL- KHARAKA, P.S. RUNISAIDPUR, DISTT. SITAMARHI 7. SATISH KUMAR SAH S/O LATE RAM NARESH SAH R/O VILL- KHARAKA, P.S. RUNISAIDPUR, DISTT. SITAMARHI 8. SANTOSH SAH S/O LATE RAM NARESH SAH R/O VILL- KHARAKA, P.S. RUNISAIDPUR, DISTT. SITAMARHI 9. NABIYA DEVI D/O LATE RAM NARESH SAH R/O VILL- KHARAKA, P.S. RUNISAIDPUR, DISTT. SITAMARHI 10. BABY DEVI D/O LATE RAM NARESH SAH R/O VILL- KHARAKA, P.S. RUNISAIDPUR, DISTT. SITAMARHI 11. RAM MILAN SAH S/O LATE RAMJI SAH R/O VILL- KHARAKA, P.S. RUNISAIDPUR, DISTT. SITAMARHI 12. SURESH SAH S/O LATE RAMJI SAH R/O VILL- KHARAKA, P.S. RUNISAIDPUR, DISTT. SITAMARHI 13. RAMESH SAH S/O LATE RAMJI SAH R/O VILL- KHARAKA, P.S. RUNISAIDPUR, DISTT. SITAMARHI ----------- 3. 19.01.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.3.1989 passed by the Consolidation authority, namely, the Consolidation Officer, Saidpur (Annexure-3) which has been affirmed in appeal by the Assistant Director, Consolidation, Sitamarhi under orders dated 22.8.1996, Annexure-2 as also by the Joint Director, Consolidation under orders dated 27.11.2007, Annexure-1. Perusal of those orders indicate that the lands in-question has been directed - 2 - to be recorded in the consolidation record in the name of Ram Milan Sah and others on the basis of sale deed dated 6.11.1937. Petitioner disputes such recording of the lands in-question in the name of Ram Milan Sah and others as he claims right, title and possession over those lands through the ex landlord, in support whereof he has relied on the raiyati Khatian which is dated 13th March, 1967, Annexure-4 as also the rent receipts issued in his favour which have presumptive value. 3. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the State, I am of the view that petitioner cannot succeed in the matter until he seeks a declaration that the sale-deed dated 6.11.1937 is void ab initio, accordingly, this writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the contents of the sale deed dated 6.11.1937 in a properly constituted suit before the competent Civil Court. 4. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)