IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9206 of 2005 1. BASHISTH MISHRA 2. KAPILESHWAR MISHRA 3. BYASNANDAN MISHRA ALL SONS OF LATE RAMOTAR MISHRA 4. NARAD MISHRA SON OF LATE RAM KRIPAL MISHRA 5. SAROJ MISHRA SON OF LATE GANESH MISHRA ALL R/O VILL GOROPUR (MARACHI), P.S. MANSURCHAK, DIST.BEGUSARAI. ---- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER,BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, BEGUSARAI 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR,LANDREFORMS, BEGUSARAI 5. SHAMBHU JHA 6. UMASHANKER JHA 7. RAMASHANKER JHA ( RESPONDENTS NOS. 5 TO 7 ARE SONS OF LATE HARISHANKER JHA R/O VILL GORAPUR ( MARACHI) P.S. MANSURCHAK, SUBDIVISION TEGHRA, DIST. BEGUSARAI 8. MAHALAKSHMI DEVI W/O SRI KRISHNADEO JHA R/O VILL BRAHMOTRA P.S. PANDAUL, DIST. MADHUBANI. --- RESPONDENTS.. ----------- 03 06.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent nos.5 and 8 and the State. Petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 being son of late Ramotar Mishra and petitioner nos. 4 and 5, have filed the present writ petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s) for setting aside the resolution of the Respondent Board of Revenue dated 17.01.2005, passed in Board Rev. no. 265 of 2000 (Annexure-5), whereby the appellate order dated 03.12.1996 (Annexure-4), was affirmed and the revision was dismissed. Background facts leading to the writ petition in a nut shell are as under:- 2 A ceiling proceeding was initiated vide L.C. case no. 12 of 1973-74, against father of respondent nos. 5 to 7, namely Late Hari Shankar Jha in terms of the provision of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act 1961. The land holder was found possessing 136.295 acres of land. The land holder(s) and father of the writ petitioner(s) filed their objections under Section 10(3) of the Act. It is case of the writ petitioners that the same was partly allowed. On a consideration of the matter the respondent D.C.J.R. allowed the claim of petitioners in respect of 1.70 acres of land appertaining to khesra nos. 54, 59, 123/2071, 88, 444 and 445. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order disposing of the objections the land holder as well as the objector (father of writ petitioners) filed appeals. The appeal preferred by the landholder gave rise to appeal no. 37 of 1986, whereas the appeal preferred by the father of writ petitioners gave rise to appeal no. 19 of 1985. It appears from the record that the appeal preferred by the land holder was allowed by order dated 15.09.1990. The appeal preferred by the father of the writ petitioners was also subsequently allowed by order dated 05.10.1991 (Annexure-2). Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 05.10.1991 respondent nos. 5 to 7 (landholder) filed revision case no. 140 of 1991, before the Additional Member, Board of Revenue. By a resolution dated 25.01.1993, the same was allowed. The revisional Court after setting aside the appellate order dated 05.10.1991 remanded the matter back to the appellate Court for reconsideration and disposal. It appears the appellate Court by order dated 11.08.1995 (Annexure-3) again allowed the claim of the 3 objector(s) (writ petitioners). This persuaded landholder (respondent nos. 5 to 7) to file yet another revision before the Board of Revenue vide Board Revision case no. 85 of 1995. On a consideration of the matter, the Board of Revenue again allowed the said revision application and set aside the appellate order. The matter was remitted back to the appellate Court/authority for reconsideration and disposal in accordance with law. This time the respondent Additional Collector (appellate authority) considered the matter in extenso and vide order dated 03.12.1996 (Annexure 4) dismissed the appeal preferred on behalf of the writ petitioners. Aggrieved over the said order the writ petitioners filed a revision application before the Board of Revenue vide Board Revision no. 265 of 2000. The Board of Revenue by resolution dated 17.01.2005 (Annexure-5) dismissed the said revision application leading to filing of the writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent nos.5 and 8 and the State. A counter has been filed on behalf of the State respondent(s) which is on record. While assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land was ‘khatiyani’ land of the ancestors of the writ petitioners and as such the same ought to have been allowed in favour of the objector (father of the writ petitioners). It is submitted that the authorities have erred in not placing reliance on the ‘khatiyan’ produced by the petitioners respecting the land claimed by them. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.5 4 and 8, on the other hand, submits that a bare perusal of the appellate order dated 03.12.1996 (Annexure-4), would show that no documents was placed apart from the khatiyan on behalf of the writ petitioner to demonstrate their claim over 6.37 acres of land. It is submitted that the subject land was auction sold and purchased by the grand father of the respondent nos.5 to 7 and father of respondent no.8 whereafter a suit was also filed by the father of the writ petitioners vide Title suit no. 15 of 1938, in which they lost. It is submitted that said land was delivered to the landholder in an execution proceeding levied by the grand father of respondent no. 5 to 7 and father of respondent no.8.All the documents such as sale certificate, order passed in execution proceeding, the order passed in case no. 144 of 1937 and the documents relating to the execution of delivery of possession of the land were field on behalf of the respondent nos.5 to 7. It is contended that khatiyan produced by the petitioners shall have no relevance in view of the fact that subsequent thereto the ancestors of the writ petitioners lost title and possession thereof by virtue of auction sale made in a civil proceeding and the lands purchased by the grand father of respondent nos. 5 to 7 and father of respondent no.8. It is next submitted that the revisional Court has set out in great detail the reasons for not allowing the revision application preferred by the writ petitioners which may not be interfered with in the writ proceeding. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.8 supported the impugned resolution of the Board of Revenue. 5 Learned counsel for the State, referring to different sub paragraphs of para 4 of the counter affidavit supported the stand taken by the respondent no.5. It is contended that there was already a suit between the ancestors of the petitioners and the landholders (grandfather of respondent no. 5 to 7 and father of respondent no.8) which was decided in favour of the land holder (grand father of respondent nos.5 to 7and father of respondent no.8). I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. From bare perusal of the order impugned and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this much is admitted that there is a dispute with regard to title and possession over the land in question. Objection(s) relating to the said land were filed on behalf of the writ petitioners as well as the land holders (father of the writ petitioners). Respondent appellate Court as well as the revisional Court have found that the documents placed on behalf of the land holders were convincing enough to demonstrate that the subject land was owned and possessed by the grand father of respondent no. 5 to 7 and father of respondent no.8 (landholder). It is admitted position that the subject land have been allotted to the landholder(s) who were asserting right, title and possession thereon. The documents of title and possession placed on behalf of the landholder were found reliable and convincing and as such the claim of the objector(s) has been rejected. This Court finds from the appellate order (Annexure-4) as well as the revisional order (Annexure-5) that findings based on appraisal of evidence/documents produced on behalf of the parties 6 have been recorded for reaching the conclusion(s). This Court, in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction will not interfere with those findings unless and until they are shown to be perverse or patently illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to demonstrate any perversity in recording those findings based on appraisal of evidence/materials produced on behalf of the parties. The matter can also be viewed from a different angle. From the submissions of the parties and perusal of the order(s) impugned, particularly Annexures-4 and 5 this is evident that both the parties are laying their claim over the subject land. If that be so, the course open to the party is not to agitate the same before the authority under the land ceiling Act who has to exercise a limited jurisdiction. For all these reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the application which is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)