CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.5104 OF 1988 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. … Choa Rai @ Choa Singh, son of Ram Baran Rai, village Bariarur, PS Kanti, District Muzaffarpur – Petitioner. Vs. 1. The Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Consolidation Officer, Kanti, PS and Anchal Kanti, Dist. Muzaffarpur. 4. Chethru Rai, son of Annant Rai, village Barairpur, PS and Anchal Kanti, District Muzaffarpur – Respondents. … For The Petitioner : Mr. YOGENDRA PRASAD SINHA, Mr. N.K.Sinha and Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocates. For The State “ : Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, A.C. to G.P. XV. … P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN S.A. Khan,J. This writ petition has been filed against the appellate order, dated 28.5.1984 and the revisional order, dated 17.8.1987 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Joint Director of Consolidation by which the courts have upheld the revisional survey entries in favour of respondent no.4. 2. The genealogical table is given below : 2 3. The case of the petitioner is that the lands which relates to C.S. plot no. 505, revisional survey plot no. 542 in village Bariarpur, P.S. Kanti, district Muzaffarpur was recorded in the names of Mahadeo, Jagdeo and Ram Baran. The petitioner is the son of Ram Baran and claims to be in possession of the entire property. Mahadeo is said to have died leaving behind two sons, namely, Bunnilal Mahto and Nandu Mahto whereas Jagdeo died issueless and is survived by his wife Most. Murti. After the death of Most. Murti, the property devolved and was divided half and half between Mahadoe and Ram Baran. Nandu Mahto and Mahadeo along with Anandi, mother of respondent no.4 sold 4 kathas and 11 dhurs of C.S. plot no. 505 on 29.10.1923 along with some other lands to the ex landlord. The remaining part of C.S. Plot no. 505 remained in possession of the petitioner. The petitioner’s father paid rent to the ex landlord and obtained receipts. After the vesting of the Zamindari the landlord submitted his return in the name of petitioner’s father. It is also the case of the petitioner that he is regularly paying rent to the State of Bihar. In the revisional survey the land in dispute was recorded in the name of respondent no. 4 and the petitioner could not file any objection or appear before the authorities at that stage as he was in service in Assam. 4. The case of respondent no.4 is that the wife of Jagdeo had executed a sale deed on 12.6.1923 and a sale deed on 29.10.1923 for plot no. 505 in favour of the ex landlord and as such the land became a Bakasht land of the landlord. Respondent no.4 also averred 3 that the ex landlord settled the land in favour of respondent no.4 and he has been coming in possession due to said settlement. In order to show that respondent no.4 was dealing with the lands, respondent no. 6 claims that he has executed two Sudhbharnas with respect to the land in question in the years 1943 and 1947 which were subsequently redeemed. The order does not reveal that documents of redemption were before the court. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid facts the appellate court and the revisional court held that the entry in favour of respondent no.4 is correct on the grounds that respondent no.4 had executed sudhbharna with respect to the land, which indicates that he was in possession of the lands in question and on the basis of the fact that other co-sharers of the petitioner had not come forward to support the case of the petitioner that he was in possession of the land by virtue of cadastral survey. 6. As far as the first finding is concerned which is with respect to two mortgage deeds, it appears that both the courts have not considered this aspect. Such pleadings raised by any party have to be decided by leading evidence and exhibiting documents concerned. The said sale deeds are also directly in conflict with the pleadings of the parties. It is the case of respondent no.4 that Jagdeo’s wife Most. Murti sold the land to the ex landlord in 1923 whereas the claim of the petitioner that she could not have sold the land to the ex landlord in the year 1923, as at that time her husband was alive and in the life time of her husband she had no authority to sell the land in question. 4 The sale deed of the year 1923 has been executed in favour of the ex landlord with respect to part of plot no. 505 and, therefore, the court ought to have considered the documents and also considered the area of the land sold by the so called sale deeds executed in 1923. 7. This court finds that in fact there are disputed facts which need to be established by evidence and as such the orders of the appellate and the revisional authority would need to be subject to scrutiny by a competent court as it involves leading of evidence with regard to the respective cases of the parties. Accordingly liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the competent civil court for adjudication of his rights. The orders passed in the appeal and the revision will not be binding on the court and the court concerned would naturally apply its independent mind after considering the evidence led in the court. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Patna High Court July 15, 2010, NAFR / haque. (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)