The decision of the civil court is binding, and revenue authorities must follow the proper procedure under the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Record) Act 1973.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sunil Kumar has submitted, that petitioners have preferred this writ petition for quashing of order dated 27.10.2009 passed by respondent no 2 (The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla) and also to show-cause that under what authority he has violated Sub Section 2 of Section 14 of the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Record) Act 1973 and not issued notice to the petitioner on whose name zamabandi has been running since long and he has been regularly paying rent to the State and further for asking show-cause from respondent no.2 that why he has superseded the judgment passed by the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, that a piece of land appertaining to Khata No.37, Plot no.136, measuring area 1.58 acres situated at Bishrampur, police Station-Sisai, District-Gumla earlier belonging to Jagarnath Sarangi, S/o Loknath Sarangi was purchased by one Balgovind Sahu throught registered sale deed bearing registered sale deed no.419 dated 08.03.1954 and got possession over the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, that to understand the respective shares of land in question to the legal heir it will be proper to arrange the Genealogy table, which is given hereunder:-Bal Govind Sahu

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, that Ramu Sahu, Lachhu Sahu and Karnu Sahu have also executed a registered sale deed on 07.03.1962 regarding land in question in favour of Bodhan Sahu, R/o Village-Patro, Police Station Sisai, District- Gumla.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, that Ramu Sahu has also executed a registered sale deed no.232, dated 04.02.1963 regarding 0.79 acres of land out of 1.58 acres in favour of same purchaser namely, Bodhan Sahu.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, that one Title Suit was filed by one Bodhan Sahu vide Title Suit No.23 of 1990 in the court of Munsif, Gumla, in which all other legal heirs of Balgovind Sahu including Mohan Sahu were defendant, which is apparent from the judgment and decree brought on record as Annexure-1.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on internal page 13 of the trial court judgment passed in Title Suit No.23 of 1990 running page 25 of the writ petition where it has been held; in the facts and circumstances “I find and hold that Mohan Sao had not obtained his share in partition from his father in the Village Ambera rather Mohan Sao and after his death his son has possessed 0.99 decimal of land from the entire suit land and the plaintiff never came in possession over the land of Mohan Sao. As such, both these issues are decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has thus submitted, that judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.23 of 1990 has attain finality as none of the sons of Balgovind Sao namely, Ramu Sahu, Lachhu Sahu and Karmu Sahu or their legal heirs have preferred any appeal against the judgment and is binding upon all the parties as they were party in the suit.

8. Learned counsel for the private-respondents, Mr. Amit Kumar Das has submitted that he has taken an adjournment to contact his client so as to take instruction on this issue, but even after trying his best he could not his client and thus he has no instruction from his client.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents-State, Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, AC to G.P.-V has submitted that in view of the judgment passed by the learned trial court, it was incumbent upon the revenue authority to mutate the land of .99 decimal in favour of Mohan Sao and the legal heirs. The wrong procedure has been adopted by the respondent-authorities that without issuance of notice as contemplated under Sub Section 2 of Section 14 of the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Record) Act 1973, the old name of the petitioners were stuck off by the reve