ORAL JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for restraining the respondents from constructing Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan at Tola Labhri of Kerap Panchayat at Khata No. 35, Plot No. 3522, Area 5 Bigha, 6 Kattha, 10 dhoor, which is the private land of the petitioner and recorded as Gair Majarua Malik. 2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that in pursuance to the scheme launched by the Government of India for construction of full-fledged office for each Gram Panchayat named as Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan, the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat in question passed a resolution for construction of the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan at Kerap Tola, Labhri and thereafter, building materials were stored near Khata No. 35, Plot No. 3522, which is the private land of the petitioner and then, the petitioner is said to have inquired and he came to know that the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan is going to be constructed on his private land. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that with regard to Khata No. 35, Plot No. 3522, Area 5 Bigha, 6 Kattha, 10 dhoor situated at Tola Labhri under the Kerap Panchayat, the learned Additional Judge II, Gaya has passed a decree in his favour and the same is proof of the fact that the land in question where the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan is being constructed, is the private land of the petitioner herein. It is further submitted that the land in question originally belongs to the ex-landlord, namely, Md. Abdul Kalim, who issued Hukumnama of 4 acre 26 ½ decimal of land in favour of the father of the petitioner in the year 1941 for annual rent of Rs. 91/- and since then, the petitioner / his father have been in possession of the said land in question. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the rent receipts have also been issued in his favour by the State Government. Thus, in nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that there is ample proof with regard to the land in question being the private land of the petitioner, hence, the respondents should be restrained from constructing any Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan on the private land of the petitioner herein. 4. Thus, in nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that there is ample proof with regard to the land in question being the private land of the petitioner, hence, the respondents should be restrained from constructing any Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan on the private land of the petitioner herein. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State, referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents No. 3 to 5, has submitted that for the purposes of construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan in Gram Panchayat Kerap, a Gram Sabha was convened by the Mukhiya and the elected ward members of the Gram Panchayat on 2.10.2016 wherein a resolution was passed unanimously for construction of Panchyat Sarkar Bhawan at Kerap, Tola Labhri, whereafter the Respondent No. 5 had made spot inspection at the proposed site and a report dated 2.1.2017 was submitted wherein it was stated that Khata No. 35, Plot No. 3522, bearing Area-3.98 acres is recorded in the Cadastral Survey Khatiyan as Gair Majarua Malik or public land and it is suitable for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan inasmuch as the said land is an undisputed land. The Block Development Officer, Rafiganj had then sent a letter to the Respondent No. 5, recommending therein regarding the construction of the Panchyat Sarkar Bhawan. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad thereafter by its letter dated 6.6.2017 sent a proposal for construction of the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan over the land in question to the Project Director, BGSYS, Panchayati Raj Department for taking necessary action. The Government of Bihar had then sanctioned the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan and the district authorities were directed to take action, accordingly. In the meantime, the district authorities got an information that the site in question is a disputed land and some civil suit is pending before the learned civil court whereupon the Circle Officer / B.D.O., Rafiganj were directed to submit an inquiry report after making spot inquiry. The Circle Officer, Rafiganj had then made a spot inquiry and submitted a report dated 18.7.2018, stating therein that the land in question is a Gairmajarua Malik and the petitioner is claiming title over the said land only on the basis of judgment dated 11.10.1958 rendered by the learned Additional Sub-Judge II, Gaya in Partition Suit No. 18 of 1956 in which the Government was not a party. 5. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that since the State was not a party to the aforesaid partition suit no. 18 of 1956, the judgment delivered in the suit would not bind the State of Bihar. It has further been submitted that forged and fake documents have been annexed to the supplementary affidavit filed in the present case inasmuch as a sada Hukumnama dated 1.7.1941 (Annexure-12) has been filed which clearly bears tauzi no. 11743 of the ex-landlord, while from perusal of the khewat (Annexure-11) of the ex-landlord would show that the tauzi number has been mentioned as 1471, hence, there being no link between the said two documents, the same cannot be relied upon. As regards, Zamindari rent receipts produced along with the supplementary affidavit, it is submitted that the revenue mauza appears as Labhari. It has been stated that Kerap is revenue village bearing than no. 423, however, in the sada bandobasti dated 1.7.1941, the name of the mauza appears as Labhari, but no such mauza / revenue village exists. Moreover, the serial numbers of all the zamindari rent receipts do not match the order of their respective years inasmuch as in the year, 1945, rent receipt no. 49325-2066/54 is said to have been purportedly issued, however, in the year, 1948, the rent receipt no. 493260-2066/54 is stated to have been issued and ridiculously, two years later, the number of the rent receipt, states to have been issued is 49327-2066/54 i.e. in the year, 1950. It is submitted that while all the aforesaid rent receipts belong to the same register bearing 2066, but the numbers are not in seriatim, hence, apparently, they are manufactured and antedated. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that during the recent revisional survey, a yaddast register was prepared on the spot and in the said register, the plot in question has been reported to be a ‘parti land’ used for cattle grazing by the villagers inasmuch as no document relating to title was produced by the petitioner. It has also been asserted in paragraph no. 27 of the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents-State that no Jamabandi of the land in question is running in favour of the petitioner or his ancestors and there exists several Government building including two PACS godown, School, Anganwari Centre etc. It has also been asserted in paragraph no. 27 of the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents-State that no Jamabandi of the land in question is running in favour of the petitioner or his ancestors and there exists several Government building including two PACS godown, School, Anganwari Centre etc. on the said land in question since a long time and only the balance left out portion in the middle has been assigned for Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan, which is to be constructed over 43 decimal only. Lastly, it is submitted that the Government receipt annexed by the petitioner is apparently forged and fabricated since the same does not bear the stamp / mark to show that it is genuine. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon a judgment of this Court dated 16.9.2014 passed in CWJC No. 8679 of 2010 to contend that firstly, disputed question of title and possession in respect of the plot in question cannot be decided in writ proceedings, secondly, no Zamabandi has been created in favour of the petitioner herein and neither the name of the petitioner nor his ancestor has ever been entered in the register II of the State of Bihar nor any rent was fixed in respect of the disputed plot in question, thus the petitioner cannot be said to be having valid right or title over the said plot in question and lastly, the judgment passed in a title suit would not be binding upon the State of Bihar in absence of it being party to the said title suit. It would be relevant to reproduce paragraph nos. 10 to 14 of the said judgment dated 16.9.2014 rendered in the case of Bimla Tilak vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. hereinbelow:- 10. It would be relevant to reproduce paragraph nos. 10 to 14 of the said judgment dated 16.9.2014 rendered in the case of Bimla Tilak vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. hereinbelow:- 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State refuted the above stated submissions arguing that no doubt, the suit plots were recorded as Gairmajarua Malik in cadastral survey khatiyan and some trees were shown in remark column of the cadastral survey khatiyan and the return was submitted in respect of the disputed plots at the time of vesting of Zamindari but the aforesaid return was not submitted along with jamabandi of the aforesaid plots and moreover, the name of the petitioner or his ancestor was never entered in Register-II of the State of Bihar nor any rent was fixed in respect of the disputed plots and similarly, no rent receipt in respect of the disputed plots was ever issued from the circle office. He further submitted that so far as Title Suit No. 154 of 1974 is concerned, the State of Bihar was never party to the above stated suit and, therefore, the finding as well as judgment of Title Suit No. 154of 1974 is not binding upon the State of Bihar. He further submitted that admittedly, the nature of land has been recorded as Pokhra as well as Pind in survey operation and the aforesaid lands are being used by the villagers since the time immemorial and, therefore, even if the aforesaid lands were recorded in cadastral survey khatian as Gairmajarua Malik,then also,the nature of aforesaid lands was never as Gairmajarua Malik and, therefore, it cannot be said that the lands in question was ever in khas possession of the petitioner or his ancestors. 11. Admittedly, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 06.03.2010 passed by respondent no. 7. It is also an admitted position that earlier petitioner filed CWJC No. 18460 of 2009 for seeking commands of this court for restraining the respondents from making any interference into her possession and making any construction over the disputed lands. The above stated CWJC No. 18460 of 2009 was disposed of by a co-ordinate bench of this court vide order dated 08.01.2010 with direction to respondent no. The above stated CWJC No. 18460 of 2009 was disposed of by a co-ordinate bench of this court vide order dated 08.01.2010 with direction to respondent no. 7 of this writ petition to dispose of representation of the petitioner and to take a decision in the matter after hearing the parties. In the light of aforesaid direction of this Court respondent no. 7 passed the impugned order dated 06.03.2010 by which he came to conclusion that the disputed plots are of lands of State Government and neither petitioner nor her ancestors was ever in possession of the disputed lands. 12. Annexure-1of this writ petition is the impugned order dated 06.03.2010 which reflects that when petitioner filed representation before the respondent no. 7 in the light of direction given by this court vide order dated 08.01.2010 passed in CWJC No. 18460 of 2009, the respondent no. 7 issued notice to all concerned parties and gave them opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims. The State specifically stated before respondent no. 7 that in respect of khata no. 210,rent receipt was never issued and as a matter of fact the aforesaid khata is a prohibited khata. Similarly, the State also pleaded before the respondent no. 7 that the name of petitioner or her ancestors was never entered in Register-II of the State nor any rent was paid either by the petitioner or by her ancestors. On contrary, the claim of the petitioner is that the rent was fixed in respect of the disputed plots and rent receipts were issued in favour of her ancestors but due to missing of original documents from Title Suit No. 154 of 1974, the original rent receipts could not be produced. Furthermore, it would appear from the pleadings as well as submissions of the parties that disputed question of title and possession is involved in the present matter because the State has, specifically, denied the title and possession of the petitioner over the disputed plots. So far as judgment pronounced in Title Suit No. 154 of 1974 is concerned, in my view, learned counsel appearing for the respondents rightly submitted that aforesaid judgment does not have any binding effect on the State because admittedly, in the aforesaid Title Suit No. 154 of 1974, the State was not party and, therefore, the aforesaid judgment is judgment in personem and not judgment in rim. 13. 13. Since the disputed question of title and possession in respect of the disputed plots is involved in the present matter and disputed question of title and possession cannot be decided in the writ matter, therefore, I am of the opinion that reliefs as sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted to her in this writ petition. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed on admission stage itself. However, petitioner may take appropriate steps before the appropriate forum to get her right, title and possession declare in respect of the disputed plots in accordance with law and if petitioner does so, the findings/observations given in this order as well as order dated 06.03.2010 passed by respondent no. 7 in Misc. Case No. 01 of 2009-10 shall not affect right, title and possession of the parties in respect of the disputed plots in future litigation.” 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I find that firstly, the judgment, referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner dated 11.10.1958, rendered by the learned Additional Sub Judge II, Gaya in Partition Suit No. 18 of 1956 for the purposes of asserting the title of the petitioner herein is of no use inasmuch as firstly, the same is not binding on the respondents-State since it was not a party to the said suit and secondly, it is a well settled law that a judgment / decree passed in a partition suit on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties to the suit cannot lead to perfection of right, title and interest in the suit property. Thus, the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, having no legal force, does not deserve any consideration. The Respondents-State has amply demonstrated that no Jamabandi has been created in favour of the petitioner and the rent receipts are also forged and fabricated as well as there is discrepancy in the sada bandobasti, which has not been denied by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder affidavit, hence, the petitioner has failed to show that he has got any right, title or possession over the plot in question. 9. 9. Another aspect of the matter is that the land in question has been recorded in the recent revisional survey conducted by the State Government to be a ‘Parti land’ used for cattle grazing by the villagers and subsequently, several Government buildings have been constructed over the same, thus, the land in question was never having a characteristic of a Gair Mazarua Malik, hence, it cannot be said that the land in question was ever in the khas possession of the petitioner or his ancestor. There is no proof of the fact that either the name of the petitioner or his ancestor has ever been entered in Register II of the State, as such, the petitioner has miserably failed to show any right or title over the said plot in question. 10. Another aspect of the matter is that since disputed question of title and possession in respect of the disputed plot in question is involved in the present case, the same cannot be decided in writ proceedings. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition, accordingly, the same is dismissed and the interim order dated 2.11.2018 stands vacated.