Judgment G. C. Bharuka, J. 1. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 7-6-1985 (Annexure-5) which has been passed by the Superintendent of Municipal Survey, Purnea (Respondent no.3) in appeal Case No.18/82. 2. The case of the petitioner is that his father late Mukhlal Tiwary was a purohit of Raj Banaili and in consideration of the service rendered by his father 8 decimals of lands were settled with him in the year 1943 by Raj benaili by fixing certain rent. The alleged rent receipts have been filed as annexure-1 series. It is claimed that the said portion of land was a part of plot No.333 which was subsequently carved out and numbered as new Survey plot No.206/606. It has further been claimed that the right of the petitioner stands duly established by the letter dated 16-4-1976 written by the Additional collector, Purnea. (Annexure-2) wherein it has been stated that at present khas Mahal has no concern with the disputed lands. It has also been submitted that a Land Encroachment Case being L. E. Case No.456 of 1979 80 which was initiated against the petitioner in respect of the lands in question had been dropped by the D. C. L. R. Purnea, by his order dated 17-1-1983, which is Annexure-3 to the application. 3. During the municipal survey the lands in question were recorded in the name of the State of Bihar and the petitioner was shown at "awaidh dakhalkar. " The petitioner having learnt about the aforesaid facts tiled an objection before the Assistant Superintendent of Municipal Survey (Objection of Purnea, Municipality (Respondent No.4), which was registered as Objection case No.137 of 1978. It seems that the State of Bihar had also filed an Objection, which was registered as Objection case No.259 of 1978. Both the Objection cases were heard together and after hearing the petitioner, the State of Bihar as also the District Board, Purnea, and the Public Works department, the Respondent No.4 came to the conclusion that new plot no.206/606 belongs to the State of Bihar. But in the same breath he held that keeping in view the settlement, the petitioner is in possession and, therefore, the lands should be recorded in hia name. But in the same breath he held that keeping in view the settlement, the petitioner is in possession and, therefore, the lands should be recorded in hia name. Against this order, the state preferred an appeal before the Respondent No.3, who, inter alia, has held that the petitioner has failed to substantiate that he had taken the lands in question on lease from any competent authority. In this view of the matter by his order dated 7-6-198s he set aside the older as contained in annexure 4and by allowing the appeal of. the State he directed for recording the lands in the name of State of Bihar (Khas Mahal ). This order is annexure-5 to this writ application. 4. While assailing the above order, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Respondent No.3 has committed an order in recording the submissions of the petitioner inasmuch as it was never asserted before the Appellate authority that the petitioner had taken the lands in question on lease from P. W. D. 5. On behalf of the State of Bihar it has been pleaded on affidavit that the lands in question are Khas Mahal land as is clearly evident from the relevant Khatiyan and the same was transferred to the District Board for construction and maintenance of G. D. Road. It has further been stated in para 5 of the Counter affidavit that the lands was given to the petitioner by the District Board on an yearly settlement for construction of a dispensary in bidh-sheet No.60/74-75 on a yearly rental of Rs.60/-. The petitioner had deposited rent up to 1983-86 with the District Board. In this view of the matter, as per the Respondent-State, the contention of the petitioner is an after thought and the alleged rent-receipts (Annexure-1 series) are forged, fake and fabricated documents. 6. On a reading of Annexure-2 it is clear that the Additional Collector purnea, had not intended to say that the lands in question were not Khas mahal Lands. On the contrary in the communication which was made to the administrator, District Board, Purnea, the Additional Collector has only said that at present Khas Mahal has no concern with the disputed lands. On the contrary in the communication which was made to the administrator, District Board, Purnea, the Additional Collector has only said that at present Khas Mahal has no concern with the disputed lands. The communication is prima facie consistent with the stand of the State that since at the material time i. e.16-4-1976 when the said letter was written the lands in question were handed over to the District Board, Purnea, for maintenance of G. D. Road and, therefore, at that time Khas Mahal had no concern. From this communication it cannot be inferred that the State had waived its right and title with respect to the lands in question. 7. Similarly in the Land Encroachment proceeding, which is evident from the order as contained in Annexure-3, there was no adjudication with regard to the ownership of the lands in question. The D. C. L. R. seems to have dropped the proceeding only on the ground that since according to him khas Mahal has no concern with the lands and the District Board or the other authority, who could have instituted the land Encroachment proceeding, has not done so. This order on the face of it suffers from a vital error of record. While referring to the letter (Annexwe-2) it has been stated that according to that letter Khas Mahal had no concern with the lands in dispute. I have aheady held above that is not the import of that letter. That letter merely lays that at that time Khas Mahal had no cpacern with the lands in dispute, and why it was so stated has been amply clarified by the State. 8. Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not see any infirmity in the impugned order (Annexure-5) calling for any interference by this Court. In this view of the matter as has been said even by the state of Bihar in its Counter-affidavit, the petitioner, if so advised, may file a title Suit to get his right and title established in respect of the lands in question. In this view of the matter as has been said even by the state of Bihar in its Counter-affidavit, the petitioner, if so advised, may file a title Suit to get his right and title established in respect of the lands in question. I may clarify here that any observation of mine made in this judgment shall not be construed as an conclusive finding with regard to right and/or title of either the petitioner or of the State of Bihar since I have expressed my opinion only in order to ascertain the validity of the impugned order as contained in Annexure-5. 9. Subject to the above observations, this writ application is dismissed. Writ application dismissed.