Ashutosh Kumar, J.—Heard Mr. Mrigank Mouli, learned senior advocate for the appellants and Mr. Neeraj Kumar for the respondent no.9. The State is represented by Ms. Deepika Sharma, learned advocate.

2. The judgment and order dated 21.03.2013 passed in CWJC No. 3841 of 2012 is under challenge.

3. The respondent no.9 had preferred a writ petition, challenging the power of the Commissioner as also his findings when he had cancelled the Jamabandi running in the name of the father of the respondent no.9 since 1956-57 with respect to a particular plot of land in the district of Patna.

4. The sole contention of the writ petitioner (respondent no.9 before the learned Single Judge) was that the Commissioner under the Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 exceeded his jurisdiction and delved on the issues of title, which he could not have done.

5. There is no dispute between the parties viz. the appellant and the respondent that the question of title cannot be determined by a quasi judicial authority under the Land Dispute Resolution Act, 2009 and perforce the parties for the aforesaid purpose are required to put forth their claim before a competent civil court exercising jurisdiction.

6. The l