Judgment : ( 1 ) IN this writ petition, petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 17-8-91 passed by respondent No. 4 in Revision Case No. 261 to 264 of 1990 and the order dated 15-9-98 passed by respondent no. 2, Commission, Palamau Division in survey Appeal No. 131 to 134 of 1991. ( 2 ) PETITIONERS case is that the land appertaining to old Khata No. 75, Plot No. 9 (new Khata No. 1, Plot No. 19) measuring 1,91 acres of village lever pandu, P. S. Bishrampur, Distt- Palamau stood recorded as raiyati land in the name of Pali Ram pandey. Just after four years from last survey settlement operation Pali Ram Pandey died leaving behind two sons Sheo Ram pandey and Guput Pandey. In the year 1941 both the above-named sons transferred the aforementioned land in favour of one Bharat shukla by virtue of registered sale deed dated 11-12-1941 and the purchaser came in possession of the same after mutating his name and started paying rent. Bharat Shukla in his turn transferred the said land to (1) Ram praga Pandey (2) Jainath Pandey and (3)Gulab Pandey by virtue of registered sale deed dated 30-12-1954. It is stated that the said purchasers came in possession of the land and started paying rent to the State of bihar. Petitioners are the heirs and legal representatives of the above-named purchasers. ( 3 ) PETITIONERS further case is that in the year 1965 the predecessor of private respondent nos. 5 and 6 being heirs and successors of aforesaid Shiv Ram Pandey and gupat Pandey filed Title Suit No. 114 of 1965 in the court of Munsif, Palamau against the aforesaid three purchasers of Bharat Shukla as principal defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and bharat Shukla as proforma defendant No. 4 for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession and/or for recovery of possession and further declaration that aforesaid registered sale deed executed by their ancestors in the year 1941 to Bharat Shukla and registered sale deed executed by Bharat shukla (proforma defendant No. 4) in the year 1954 in favour of principal defendant nos. 1 to 3 (who are petitioners and predecessors of present writ petitioners) are farzi and that orders of mutation passed by b. D. O. , Bishrampur and confirmed in appeal No. 287 of 1960-61 in favour of defendant are illegal and without jurisdiction. 1 to 3 (who are petitioners and predecessors of present writ petitioners) are farzi and that orders of mutation passed by b. D. O. , Bishrampur and confirmed in appeal No. 287 of 1960-61 in favour of defendant are illegal and without jurisdiction. Defendants (predecessors of writ petitioners and writ petitioner No. 3) filed their written statement in the aforesaid Title Suit No. 114 of 1965. The suit was decreed but finally the appeal preferred by the defendants of that suit was allowed by Additional District judge, Palamau by his judgments and decree dated 10-5-1973 passed in Title Appeal no. 23 of 1971 holding that plalntiffs are not entitled to get the declaration sought for and consequently the suit was dismissed on contest with cost. Again in the year 1975 the sons of the plalntiffs of aforesaid earlier title Suit No. 114 of 1965 (now respondent nos. 5 to 6 in present writ petition) filed title Suit No. 56 of 1975 for declaration that they are occupancytenants in possession of the suit land and the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, palamau in Title Appeal No. 23 of 1971 (Annexure-1) is not affecting them and prayed for permanent injunctions against the present writ petitioners not to enforce the aforesaid judgment. On contest, the aforesaid Title Suit No. 56 of 1975 dismissed by judgment and decree dated 31 -5-1979 passed by Munsiff, Palamau, whereby learned munsif held that the suit is barred by principles of res judicata u/s. 11 of the Code of civil Procedure, because plalntiff of Title Suit no. 114 of 1965 preferred Second Appeal in the Honble High Court against the first appellate judgment (T. A. No. 23 of 1971) which was not admitted, and as such the mater became final. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of learned Munsiff, Palamau passed in Title Suit No. 56/75 the plalntiff/ judgment debtor (Sons of present respondent No. 5 and 6) filed Title Appeal No. 40 of 1979. By judgment and decree dated 28-7-80 the 4th Additional Sub Judge, Palamau dismissed the aforesaid Title Appeal No. 40 of 1979 on contest with cost and the judgment and decree of Trial Court passed in title Suit No. 56 of 1975 was confirmed. By judgment and decree dated 28-7-80 the 4th Additional Sub Judge, Palamau dismissed the aforesaid Title Appeal No. 40 of 1979 on contest with cost and the judgment and decree of Trial Court passed in title Suit No. 56 of 1975 was confirmed. Lastly plalntiffs/respondent (judgment-debtors) filed Second Appeal No. 169 of 1980 in this Honble Court which was also dismissed on contest with cost by judgment and decree dated 6th September 1989. Thereafter in recent survey settlement operation under the C. N. T. Act, the predecessor of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 by suppressing the aforesaid judgments and decree of civil suits and appeals as aforesaid and gaining over the conscious of the surveying authorities and their staffs, got the order u/s. 83 of the c. N. T. Act passed in their favour for preparation draft statements under assertion of same clalm as taken in civil suits in respect of same land in which their clalm have already been rejected. The predecessor of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in connivance with the survey authorities and staff with intention to complicate the matter and harass the petitioners in respect of same land and same parties involved in aforesaid successive Title Suits cause to register 4 separate objection case nos. 17, 18, 19 and 41 u/s. 83 of the C. N. T. Act. As soon as the petitioners learnt about the said purported order and draft statement as stated above filed Revision Case No. 261, 262, 263 and 264 of 1990 u/s. 89 of the C. N. T. Act against the aforesaid four objection cases on the ground that aforesaid purported objection and orders if any u/s. 83 is in complete violation and disregard of the judgments and decree passed in civil suits passed by learned Munsiff, Additional District Judge and this Honble high Court and as such the proceedings pursuant to such objections is void, illegal, perverse, contemptuous and an abuse of the legal authority. It is stated that in aforesaid revision Case No. 261 to 264 of 1990 opposite parities the predecessor of respondent nos. 5 and 6 have not filed any chit of paper in support of their clalm. But Sri Munshi bhojraj, Incharge Officer, Palamau by his order dated 17-8-91 passed in Revision Case no. 261 of 1990 u/s. 89 of the C. N. T. Act rejected all the four Revision Case Nos. 5 and 6 have not filed any chit of paper in support of their clalm. But Sri Munshi bhojraj, Incharge Officer, Palamau by his order dated 17-8-91 passed in Revision Case no. 261 of 1990 u/s. 89 of the C. N. T. Act rejected all the four Revision Case Nos. 261 to 264 of 1990 holding therein that predecessor of respondent Nos. 5 series and 6 are in possession, and ignored all the decisions of civil suits, appeals including of this honble High Court. ( 4 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 6 wherein he has stated, inter alia, that after publication of draft statement under section 83 of the C. N. T. Act the remedy is to be filed revenue suit under section 87 of the C. N. T. Act and the petitioners did not exhaust the remedy provided under section 87 of the C. N. T. Act and as such also the writ petition filed by the petitioners is fit to be dismissed. The orders passed by Revenue Authorities are quite legal and valid and the same are based on correct proposition of law. Besides the above the possession of these respondents have again declared under section 145, Cr. P. C. vide order dated 12-5-99 vide case No. 398 of 1997. This fact has been concealed by the petitioners. It is stated that a decree passed in the civil suit cannot be implemented by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Honble court. Moreover, the petitioners have alternative remedy to file suit under Section 87 of C. N. T. Act and as such also the writ petition filed by the petitioners is fit to be dismissed. The petitioners are not entitled to get any relief as prayed for in para-1 of the writ petition. It is stated that the dispute relates to the lands measuring an area of 1. 92 acres of plot No. 9 of khata No. 75 situated at village-Lover Pandu, P. S. Bisrampur, district-Palamau. It was admittedly recorded inthe name of Pali Ram Pandey in the last cadastral survey and settlement operation. It is stated that the dispute relates to the lands measuring an area of 1. 92 acres of plot No. 9 of khata No. 75 situated at village-Lover Pandu, P. S. Bisrampur, district-Palamau. It was admittedly recorded inthe name of Pali Ram Pandey in the last cadastral survey and settlement operation. It is stated that Pali Ram Pandey died leaving behind two sons, namely, Pandey Shiv ram and Pandey Guput Ram and so long the survey recorded raiyat remained alive, he continued in peaceful possession of the lands of khata No. 75 and after his death, his two sons came in possession of the same and inherited the same by way of succession. It is stated that the mortgagee Bigan mahto came in possession of the lands of khata No. 75 by virtue of registered deed of mortgage and remained in possession till the mortgage was not re-deemed. It is stated that the mortgage was renewed and in the year 1955 it was re-deemed by the mortgager and on the basis thereof they came in possession and as such the interruption of possession of the legal heir of survey recorded raiyat continued from the year 1928 again regained by the said legal heirs in the year 1955 and on the basis thereof after vesting of Jamabandi interest the State of Bihar recognized them as raiyat for the lands in question and their names were duly entered into the revenue records and since then they are making payment regularly to the State of Bihar now State of Jharkhand. It is stated that the petitioners being aggrieved by the said orders filed Revision Survey Appeal Nos. 131, 132, 133, 134 of 1991 before the Divisional Commissioner, Palamau who after making enquiries and after properly considering the materials on the record dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. ( 5 ) I have heard Mr. T. . N. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and mr. L. K. Lal learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have also considered the entire facts of the case and the orders passed by the Civil Courts and the impugned orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY the suit land was transferred in the year 1941 by virtue of registered document by the two sons of the recorded raiyat, namely, Shiv Ram Pandey and Gupat Pandey. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY the suit land was transferred in the year 1941 by virtue of registered document by the two sons of the recorded raiyat, namely, Shiv Ram Pandey and Gupat Pandey. The purchaser Bharat Shukla in his turn after remaining in possession for a long time transferred the suit land in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners in the year 1954 by virtue of registered deed of sale deed and they came in possession and have paid rent to the State of Bihar by mutating the land in their favour. The said transfers were challenged by the predecessor of the respondents by filing Title suit No. 114 of 1965. The said suit was eventually dismissed by the appellate Court in title Appeal No. 23 of 1971 holding that the plaintiffs (predecessors-in-interest of the respondents herein) are not entitled to any relief. Again respondent Nos. 5 and 6 filed another suit in the year 1975 being Title Suit no. 56 of 1975 for declaration that they are occupancy tenant in possession of the suit land. The said suit was again dismissed and the judgment and decree was affirmed upto this Court in Second Appeal No. 169 of 1980. Ignoring the aforesaid judgments and decrees passed by the Civil Courts of Competent Jurisdiction, the Authorities under the survey Settlement Operation has prepared draft statement and entered the names of the respondents. It is rather surprising that in spite of the fact that all the judgments passed in all the suits and appeals were produced by the petitioners before the revisional Authorities, but they reject the plea on the ground that the respondents have alleged to be in possession. The Commissioner in an appeal filed by the petitioners although held that the dispute relates to civil nature, but he upheld the orders of the Settlement Officer on the basis of documents filed by the respondents. In other words, the Commissioner illegally and erroneously gave weightage to the documents filed by the respondents and failed to give full weightage to the judgments passed by the Civil Courts of competent jurisdiction and affirmed upto the High Court. In other words, the Commissioner illegally and erroneously gave weightage to the documents filed by the respondents and failed to give full weightage to the judgments passed by the Civil Courts of competent jurisdiction and affirmed upto the High Court. In my opinion, the Revisional Authorities have committed serious illegality in not preparing a draft statement on the basis of judgments and decrees passed by the Civil courts of competent jurisdiction which is the conclusive evidence of title and possession of a party in whose favour the judgments have been given. For this reason alone, the impugned orders passed by the revisional Authorities cannot be sustained in law. ( 7 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, this writ pe tition is allowed and the impugned orders passed by the Revisional Authorities are set aside. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .