Syed Md.Mahfooz Alam, J.

1. This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 31.8.1989 passed by Sri S.S. Prasad, 10th Additional District Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Title Appeal No. 3/3 of 1985/1987 affirming the judgment and decree dated 15.12.1984 passed by Sri N.N. Singh, 4th Additional Subordinate Judge, Sasaram in Title Suit No. 121/45 of 1980/83 whereby the suit of the plaintiff- appellant and the appeal preferred by him were dismissed.

2. The brief facts of this case are as follows :

The plaintiff-appellant filed Title Suit No. 121 of 1980 before the Subordinate Judge, Sasaram claiming right, title and interest in the suit land described in Schedules A and B of the plaint by virtue of the settlement through unregistered patta (Ext. 3 series) by ex-landlord in favour of Tripathi Jagdish Narain Sharma, father of the appellant. Further case is that Schedules A and B lands were recorded as Gairmazarua lands in the cadestral survey but after survey operation the ex-landlord brought those lands in their khas possession and came in cultivating possession of the lands. One Maheshwari Prasad Singh was the landlord of the lands appertaining to khata Nos. 53 and 67 described in Schedule A of the plaint. The father of the appellant, namely, Jagdish Narain Sharma took settlement of the said lands from the ex- landlord through an unregistered patta on payment of Rs. 500.00 as Salami on the 1st July 1345 Fasli corresponding to 1st July, 1938. Since the date of settlement the plaintiffs father and later on, the plaintiff came in cultivating possession of the land. Further case is that the ex-landlord at the time of vesting of Zamindari submitted return with regard to the land described in Schedule A in the name of Tripathi Jagdish Narain Sharma, father of the plaintiff- appellant and as such after vesting of the zamindari the State of Bihar accepted the plaintiff and his father as tenants of the suit land and accordingly, the rent receipts of the suit lands were also issued by the State of Bihar in their names.

Further case is that the father of the plaintiff, namely, Tripathi Jagdish Narain Sharma took settlement of 1 acre 59 decimals of land from ex-landlord Tapeshwari Nand Sahay on 22.7.1948. He also took settlement of 3 acres 17 decimals of land on 5.7.1948 from the ex-landlord Babu Jagdish Nand Sahay and Babu Jitendra Nand Sahay. On 13.7.1948 he took settlement of 4 acres 32 decimals of land from ex-landlord Babu Aditya Nand Sahay. All the settlements were made on the basis of sada patta executed in favour of the father of the plaintiffs. These lands have been described in Schedule B of the plaint. Further case is that after settlement, the plaintiffs father came in possession of the Schedule A and B lands. In the year 1975, a family partition took place and in that partition these lands of Schedules A and B were allotted to the share of the plaintiff and since then the plaintiff has been coming in khas possession of those lands.

Futher case is that in revisional survey, the survey authority without examining the documents and other proof of land with regard to the title of the plaintiff over Schedules A and B lands recorded the suit lands in the name of the State of Bihar. The plaintiffs father filed a petition under Section 106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act before the survey authorities for correction of the entries of the Khatian in the revisional survey in respect of the disputed land but before the hearing is made on the petition, consolidation proceeding started and due to that, the survey authorities did not pass any order on his petition. The plaintiff filed an application before the Consolidation Officer, Chenari for correction of the khatian but before the hearing is made on the petition, village Karech has been declared in the Notified Area Committee and the survey operation of that village was stayed. It is further said that no consolidation proceeding in respe