Judgment 1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 10-9-1985 passed by the respondent No. 2 in Appeals Nos. 21 and 22 of 1982, whereby and whereunder, the said respondent directed that the name of respondents Nos. 4 to 11 be entered in the municipal records in respect of survey plots Nos. 280(P) and 265(P) situated in ward No. 10 of Dumraon Municipality and thereby rejected objection No. 16 of 1981 and allowed in part the objection No. 103 of 1981 and thereby further set aside the order passed by the respondent No. 3 dated 25-11-1981 in abjection case No. 16 of 1981 and objection case No. 103 of 1981. 2. Shorn of all unnecessary details, the facts of the matter are as follows :- The aforementioned plots were entered into the municipal survey records in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner i.e. Maharaja Kamal Singh. The said Maharaja Kamal Singh by a registered deed of sale dated 15-10-1963 transferred his right, title and interest in favour of the petitioner company for a consideration of Rs. 1,75,000.00 inter alia in respect of the lands in question. The petitioner contends that the name of the aforementioned Maharaja Kamal Singh was entered in the earlier municipal survey settlement records which took place in the year 1911-1912. 3 A typed copy of the aforementioned municipal Khesara is contained in Annexures-A and A/1 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the private respondent. However, at the time of the hearing of this case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before me the certified copy of the aforementioned Khesra wherefrom, it appears that inter alia there are two columns therein being columns Nos. 4 and 5. Column No. 4 refers to the name of the person who is entitled to receive rent and column No. 5 refers to the name of the person who is in possession of the land in question and pays rent to the person whose name appears in column No. 4. According to the petitioner, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents Nos. Column No. 4 refers to the name of the person who is entitled to receive rent and column No. 5 refers to the name of the person who is in possession of the land in question and pays rent to the person whose name appears in column No. 4. According to the petitioner, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents Nos. 4 to 11 namely, Jagernath Ram Kanu, was a tenant under the vendor of the petitioner and in that view of the matter, the name of the aforementioned Jagernath Ram Kanu was entered into the aforementioned Kheshra in column No. 5 and the name of Dumraon Raj was entered into in column No. 4 thereof. 4. It appears that during the recent survey, at the stage of Khanapuri operation, a dispute arose between the petitioner and the said Jagernath Ram Kanu in respect of the plots in question and in the said Khanapuri operation the name of Jagernath Ram Kanu was entered against the land in question. The concerned authority further ordered that in column No. 6 of Kheshra, the name of Bihar Sarkar and thereunder the name of the petitioner be entered and in the possessory column No. 6 Ka, the name of Jagernath Ram Kanu be entered. The petitioner raised an objection in regard to the aforementioned entry made by Khanapuri Officer contending inter alia therein that the aforesaid Jagernath Ram Kanu had executed a Kirayanama in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and had been paying rent all along. It was further contended that after the vesting of the estate in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 , the former proprietor became the statutory tenant under the State of Bihar and fair rent in respect of the land in question was fixed in terms of S.7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and the Rules framed thereunder, and, as such, the name of the petitioner should have been entered into in the kheshara prepared under the recent survey settlement operation also. 5. The said objection was heard by the respondent No. 3 who by his order dated 4-21981 held that so far as plot No. 265(P) is concerned, Jagernath Ram Kanu had no paper, whatsoever. 5. The said objection was heard by the respondent No. 3 who by his order dated 4-21981 held that so far as plot No. 265(P) is concerned, Jagernath Ram Kanu had no paper, whatsoever. He further held that in the Kirayanama dated 1-4-1953, the signature of Jagernath Ram Kanu appears and, as such, he was a tenant under the Dumraon Raj in respect of plot No. 1501 (New) consisting of plot No. 280 (Old). So far as plot No. 265 is concerned, he held that the said land belonged to the petitioner and the said Jagernath Ram Kanu was merely a tenant. The said authority further held that it has no jurisdiction to decide the title. The said order dated 25-11-1981 is contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application. 6. Thereafter, the aforementioned Jagernath Ram Kanu filed two separate appeals against the said order which are numbered as cases Nos. 21 and 22 of 1982. As both the appeals were related to same plot number i.e. survey plot No. 1501 (New) and the dispute was also between the same parties, they were made analogous and were disposed of by a common judgement under the provisions of the Bihar Municipal Survey Act by an order dated 10-9-1985 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. 7. Mr. K.D. Chatterjee, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that respondent No. 2 in passing the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application, misdirected himself in so far as he purported to proceed to determine the case of respondents Nos. 4 to 11 on the basis of alleged adverse possession. According to Mr. Chatterjee, at all material times the said Jagernath Ram Kanu and his successors-in interest were/are tenants under the petitioner and/or its predecessor-in-interest and in that view of the matter, he could not deny the title of the petitioner in view of S.116 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned counsel further submitted that under the provisions of the Bihar Municipal, Survey Act, the authority concerned could not have decided a complicated question of title and in that view of the matter, the order passed by the respondent No. 2 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition is wholly illegal. The learned counsel further submitted that under the provisions of the Bihar Municipal, Survey Act, the authority concerned could not have decided a complicated question of title and in that view of the matter, the order passed by the respondent No. 2 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition is wholly illegal. The learned counsel further submitted that the very fact that the said Jagernath Ram Kanu based his claim on the basis of entries in previous khasra wherefrom it appear (Annexure-2 to the writ application) that he accepted that his name along with the name of Dumraon Raj was entered in the earlier survey settlement Keshara and, as such there was no reason as to why a change would be effected therein. Mr. Chatterjee further drew my attention to the said application filed by, Sri Jagernath Ram Kanu whereunder he admitted that he had been paying rent in respect of the land in question, presumably to the petitioner. 8. Mr. S.S. Ashgar Hussain, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner claims the premises in question as being a Gola Bazar. The learned counsel submitted that only Gola which means the store house for foodgrains only, belonging to and in possession of the out-going proprietor or tenure holder is saved from vesting in terms of the provisions of S.7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. According to the learned counsel only in respect of a homestead land a tenancy is possible to be created and recognized by the State of Bihar but not in terms of S.7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The learned counsel contends that the Gola Bazar which in effect and substance is a Bazar and not a Gola cannot be said to come within the purview of S.7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner, therefore, evidently, has no title in relation to the premises in question which is admittedly a shop premises. 9. The learned counsel further contends that in terms of S.7-A of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, a Hat or Bazar belonging to an intermediary vested absolutely in the State of Bihar. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner, therefore, evidently, has no title in relation to the premises in question which is admittedly a shop premises. 9. The learned counsel further contends that in terms of S.7-A of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, a Hat or Bazar belonging to an intermediary vested absolutely in the State of Bihar. The learned counsel submitted that as the Hat or Bazar does not come within the purview of a Homestead as defined in S.2(j) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the premises in question vested in the State of Bihar and in that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be said to have any subsisting right, title and interest in respect of the premises in question. The learned counsel in this connection has referred to a Full Bench decision of this Court in Mst. Bibi Sayeeda V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1985 BBCJ (HC) 1 : ( AIR 1985 Pat 77 ). 10. Mr. Chatterjee, in reply to the aforementioned submissions contended that rightly or wrongly the petitioner has been recognised as a statutory tenant by the State of Bihar who is accepting rent from it and in such a situation it does not lie in the mouth of respondent No. 2 acting as an appellate authority under the provisions of the Bihar Municipal Survey Act and the rules framed thereunder to hold that the petitioner has no subsisting title in relation thereto. The learned counsel further submitted that in terms of the provisions of Sub-Sec. (2) and S.7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, anybody, who has any interest in the same could file an objection in proceeding under S.107 of the said Act but the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 4 to 11 did not choose to do it and in that view of the matter, they cannot deny the title of the petitioner at this stage. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at great length and on perusal of the petition, affidavits, counter-affidavit and various other documents appended thereto I am of the opinion that in the present case it is not necessary to dwell upon the question of vesting of the premises in question in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. 12. In terms of the provision of the Bihar Municipal Survey Act, the respondents Nos. 12. In terms of the provision of the Bihar Municipal Survey Act, the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are the statutory functionaries and as such they must confine their jurisdiction within the four corners of the statute. The contention of the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 4 to 11 to the effect that the property has vested in the state may be correct, however, in my opinion, in view of the fact that at an early stage, the fair rent was determined by the State of Bihar in respect of the properties in question in terms of the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act or the rules framed thereunder the same should be given effect to unless it is held otherwise by any competent authority or competent Court of law. 13. In my opinion, the Collector acting as an appellate authority under the provisions of the Bihar Municipal Survey Act and the Rules framed thereunder could not have indirectly questioned the legality or propriety of the order passed by a Collector under the Bihar Land Reforms Act fixing fair rent in favour of Dumraon Raj inter alia in respect of the land in question. 14. However, I hasten to add that it does not mean that the State of Bihar or the Collector under the Bihar Land Reforms Act cannot do so. Certainly, the same is possible to be done by the Collector under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, particularly in view of the provisions of S.7-A of the Bihar Land Reforms Act which was inserted by an amendment in the said Act carried out in the year 1959. What I mean to say is that the respondent No. 2 who is an appellate authority cannot do so in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under the provisions of the Bihar Municipal Survey Act. 15. Mr. Asgar Hussain may again be right in his contention that the petitioner has no subsisting right in respect of the premises in question as the same is not a Gola as contemplated under the provisions of the S.7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act; but the said question requires determination as to existence of the jurisdictional facts in relation thereto. Asgar Hussain may again be right in his contention that the petitioner has no subsisting right in respect of the premises in question as the same is not a Gola as contemplated under the provisions of the S.7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act; but the said question requires determination as to existence of the jurisdictional facts in relation thereto. The question as to whether the shop in question is saved in terms of S.5 or S.7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act or being a Hat or Bazar vested in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the S.7-A thereof, would upon the facts and the circumstances such case. If the shop in question is situated in a bazar as is contemplated under S.7-A of the Bihar Land Reforms Act the same might have vested in the State of Bihar but in my opinion, the respondent No. 2 acting as an appellate authority under the provisions of the Bihar Municipal Survey Act could not have determined the said complicated question which requires investigation of the fact and particularly in view of the fact and as stated hereinbefore that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was assessed with a fair rent in respect of the lands in question. The effect of change in the statute by way of insertion of S.7-A of the said Act has to be determined by a competent authority or a competent Court of law if and when such question falls for determination. 16. It is admitted by all concerned that the petitioner has filed a suit for eviction against the respondents Nos. 4 to 11 which is pending. In the said suit itself an appropriate issue can be framed and determined as to whether the petitioner is the and/or continues to be landlord of the respondents Nos. 4 to 11 in respect of the premises in question or its right title anti interest has ceased after coming into force of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, The other and further questions which have been raised before me may also appropriately be dealt with by the Civil Court in the aforementioned litigation. 17. 4 to 11 in respect of the premises in question or its right title anti interest has ceased after coming into force of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, The other and further questions which have been raised before me may also appropriately be dealt with by the Civil Court in the aforementioned litigation. 17. Needless to add that the State of Bihar may also initiate an appropriate proceeding against the petitioner under the Bihar Land Reforms Act or may join in the issues in the said suit or file any other suit in respect of the entries made in the Kheshra in question. 18. However, it must be observed that the findings of respondent No. 2 in his order dated 10-9-1985 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application that the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 4 to 11 have acquired title by adverse possession, is not correct and cannot be upheld. 19. The respondent No. 2 in his order did not address himself the right question not tried to acquaint himself with the relevant facts. It is admitted that the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 4 to 11 Jagernath Ram Kanu was a lessee under the Dumraon Raj and had been paying rent to it. This finding of fact by the settlement officer in the order dated 25-11-1981 as contained in Annexure-2 as also the order dated 4-2-1981, as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application are not in question. 20. The respondents Nos. 4 to 11 or their predecessor-in-interest could not, therefore, challenge the title of the petitioner only on the ground that its title in respect of the premises in question has come to an end under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. If such contention is raised it will be open to the petitioner to contend that it became a statutory tenant under the State of Bihar in respect of the premises in question in terms of the provision of S.5 or 7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. Such a question, in my opinion, cannot appropriately be dealt with in an appeal under Bihar Municipal Survey Act and the rules framed thereunder. In any view of the matter the question of acquisition of title by the said Jagernath Ram Kanu by adverse possession does not arise. Such a question, in my opinion, cannot appropriately be dealt with in an appeal under Bihar Municipal Survey Act and the rules framed thereunder. In any view of the matter the question of acquisition of title by the said Jagernath Ram Kanu by adverse possession does not arise. If the right of the petitioner or the predecessor-in-interest in respect of the premises in question vested in the State of Bihar under Bihar Land Reforms Act, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 4 to 11 could begin to possess adversely only against the State of Bihar and not against the petitioner, or its predecessor-in-interest. However, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 4 to 11 does not appear to have put forward any such claim before the respondents Nos. 3 and 2 respectively in the objections and appeals filed or preferred before them. 21. Plainly enough, the inter se dispute with regard to the title in respect of the land in question by and between the petitioner and the State of Bihar is to be determined by an appropriate forum. In such a situation, in my opinion, the question of Jagernath Ram Kanus acquiring any interest by adverse possession does not arise. 22. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the order dated 10-9-1985 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application cannot be sustained which is, accordingly, quashed subject to the observations and directions mentioned herein before. 23. In the result, this writ application is allowed. However, in the facts and the circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.