Patna High Court
Case Details
Patna High Court CWJC No.5947 of 1988 dt.12-07-2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5947 of 1988 =========================================================== 1. Dayali Rai son of Kali Rai (Since dead, his name has been expunged and is substituted by his heirs and legal representatives vide order dated 16.10.1998) (a) Bhola Rai (b) Ajay Kr. Rai (c) Sanjay Kr. (d) Mostt. Chandwati Devi 2. Rajdeo Rai ( Since dead, his name has been expunged and is substituted by his heirs and legal representatives vide order dated 20.7.2010) (i) Devendra Pd. Rai (ii) Nageshwar Pd. Rai (iii) (iv) Indu Pd. Rai Lal Babu Rai All sons of deceased Rajdeo Rai (v) Shakuntala Devi, D/o Late Rajdeo Rai and W/o Uday Shankar Pd. Rai (vi) Gyatri Devi, D/o Deceased Rajdeo Rai and w/o Uma Shankar Pd. Singh (vii) Sanju Devi, D/o Deceased Rajdeo Rai and wife of Subodh Rai (viii) Veena Devi D/o Deceased Rajdeo Rai and wife of Sashi Bhushan Rai 3. Bir Chand Rai (since dead, his name has been expunged and is substituted by his heirs and legal representatives vide order dated 20.7.2010) (i) Raghu Nath Rai, son of Late Bir Chand Rai (ii) Surendra Rai, sons of Late Bir Chand Rai (iii) Anju Devi, D/o Late Bir Chand Rai (iv) Manju Devi, D/o Late Bir Chand Rai 4. Rajendra Rai son of Sri Harihar Rai 5. Shivjee Rai son of Sri Harihar Rai 6. Shambhu Rai son of Raj Ballabh Rai 7. Ram Lagan Rai son of Beni Rai ( since dead, his name has been expunged and is substituted by his heirs and legal representatives vide order dated 20.7.2010. (i) Mahesh Rai (ii) Dinesh Rai (iii) Umesh Rai (iv) Rajeshwar Rai (v) (vi) Munna Kumar ( all (i) to (vi) are sons of late Ram Lagan Rai) (vii) Meena Devi D/o late Ram Lagan Rai (viii) Malti Devi D/o late Ram Lagan Rai (ix) Dewanti Devi D/o late Ram Lagan Rai (x) Punam Devi D/o late Ram Lagan Rai (xi) Most. Sharda Devi W/o late Ram Lagan Rai Suresh Rai All are residents of village Goshpur Ijra,P.S. Hazipur, district-Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Joint Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna 3. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Vaishali at Hajipur 4. The Consolidation Officer, Desari, P.S. Desari, District-Vaishali
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.5947 of 1988 dt.12-07-2013 2 5. Ayodhya Rai 6. Kailash Rai ( since dead, his name has been expunged and is substituted by his heirs and legal representatives vide order dated 4.8.2010) Bhagwati Devi wife of late Kailash Rai Suresh Rai (i) (ii) (iii) Asheshwar Rai (iv) Bisheshwar Rai (v) Yugeshwar Rai (vi) Singheshwar Rai ( (i) to (vi) are sons of Late Kailash Rai (vii) Phulpari Devi D/o late Kailash Rai (viii) Gayatri Devi D/o late Kailash Rai
Legal Reasoning
7. Mahadeo Rai 8. Saryug Rai ( Nos. 5 to 8 are sons of Sri Bhotan Rai 9. Radhika Devi 10. Rajiya Devi 11. Savitri Devi (Respondent Nos. 9 to 11 are heirs of petitioner No. 1 and have been impleaded as respondents vide order dated 16.10.1998 as they had not appeared but prayer was made to implead them as respondents) All are residents of village-Goshpur Ijra, P.S. Hajipur, District- Vaishali. with .... .... Respondent/s Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5804 of 1988 =========================================================== 1. Dayali Rai son of Kali Rai (Since dead, his name has been expunged and is substituted by his heirs and legal representatives vide order dated 16.10.1998) (a) Bhola Rai (b) Ajay Kr. Rai (c) Sanjay Kr. (d) Mostt. Chandwati Devi Rajdeo Rai ( Since dead, his name has been expunged and is substituted by his heirs and legal representatives vide order dated 15.7.2010) 2. (i) Devendra Pd. Rai (ii) Nageshwar Pd. Rai (iii) Indu Pd. Rai (iv) Lal Babu Rai All sons of deceased Rajdeo Rai (v) Shakuntala Devi, D/o Late Rajdeo Rai and W/o Uday Shankar Pd. Rai (vi) Gyatri Devi, D/o Deceased Rajdeo Rai and w/o Uma Shankar Pd. 3. Singh (vii) Sanju Devi, D/o Deceased Rajdeo Rai and wife of Subodh Rai (viii) Veena Devi D/o Deceased Rajdeo Rai and wife of Sashi Bhushan Rai Bir Chand Rai (since dead, his name has been expunged and is substituted by his heirs and legal representatives vide order dated 15.7.2010) (j) Raghu Nath Rai, son of Late Bir Chand Rai (ii) Surendra Rai, sons of Late Bir Chand Rai (iii) Anju Devi, D/o Late Bir Chand Rai Patna High Court CWJC No.5947 of 1988 dt.12-07-2013 3 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. (iv) Manju Devi, D/o Late Bir Chand Rai Rajendra Rai son of Sri Harihar Rai Shivjee Rai son of Sri Harihar Rai Shambhu Rai son of Raj Ballabh Rai Shiv Balak Rai ( since dead, his name has been expunged and is substituted by his heirs and legal representatives vide order dated 15.7.2010) Arun Kumar Rai, son of Late Shiv Balak Rai Ram Balak Rai son of Tipan Rai (since dead, his name has been expunged and is substituted by his heirs and legal representatives vide order dated 15.7.2010) (i) Prem Kumar Rai (ii) Binod Kumar Rai (iii) Rakesh Kumar Rai (iv) Gayatri Devi Ladu Thakur son of Jadu Thakur (since dead, his name has been expunged and is substituted by his heirs and legal representatives vide order dated 16.10.1998) (a) Mostt. Sharda Devi (b) Ashok Sharma (c) Santosh Kumar (d) Savita Kumari Laxmi Thakur son of Jadu Thakur Ram Lagan Rai son of Beni Rai (since dead, his name has been expunged and is substituted by his heirs and legal representatives vide order dated 15.7.2010) (i) Mahesh Rai (ii) Dinesh Rai (iii) Umesh Rai (iv) Rajesh Rai (v) Suresh Rai (vi) Munna Rai (vii) Muno Devi (viii) Malti Devi (ix) Dewanti Devi (x) Punam Devi (xi) Mostt. Sharda Devi All residents of village-Goshpur Ijra, P.S. Hajipur, Distt.-Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Joint Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna 3. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Vaishali at Hajipur 4. The Consolidation Officer, Desari, P.S. Desari, Distt. Vaishali. 5. Ayodhya Rai son of Bhotan Rai 6. Kailash Rai son of Bhotan Rai ( since dead, his name has been expunged and is substituted by his heirs and legal representatives vide order dated 4.8.2010) a. Bhagwati Devi wife of late Kailash Rai b. Suresh Rai c. Asheshwar Rai d. Bisheshwar Rai Patna High Court CWJC No.5947 of 1988 dt.12-07-2013 4 e. Yugeshwar Rai f. Singheshwar Rai ( (a) to (f) are sons of Late Kailash Rai g. Phulpari Devi D/o late Kailash Rai h. Gayatri Devi D/o late Kailash Rai 7. Mahadeo Rai son of Bhotan Rai 8. Sarjug Rai son of Bhotan Rai 9. Radhika Devi 10. Rajiya Devi 11. Savita Devi 12. Smt. Indu Devi 13. Smt. Anita Devi ( Respondent Nos. 9 to 11 are heirs of petitioner No. 1 and have been impleaded as respondents vide order dated 16.10.1998 as they had not appeared but prayer was made to implead them as respondents and Respondent Nos. 12 & 13 are heirs of petitioner No. 9 and have been impleaded as respondents vide order dated 16.10.1998 as they also had not appeared but prayer was made to implead them as respondents). .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No. 5947 of 1988) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, Advocate Kusum Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, A.C. to A.A.G. 13 For the Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 : Mr. Shrinandan Pd. Singh, Advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate Mr. Surendra Pd. Singh, Advocate (In CWJC No. 5804 of 1988) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, Advocate Kusum Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, A.C. to A.A.G. 13 For the Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 : Mr. Shrinandan Pd. Singh, Advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate Mr. Surendra Pd. Sinha, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 12-07-2013 Patna High Court CWJC No.5947 of 1988 dt.12-07-2013 5 Heard the parties. 2. Since the issues of facts and issues of law involved in
Decision
both the writ petitions are common and identical, therefore, with the consent of the parties both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The petitioners of both the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, are aggrieved by a common order dated 10.6.1988, (Annexure-6 of C.W.J.C. No. 5947 of 1988 and Annexure-9 in C.W.J.C. No. 5804 of 1988) passed jointly in Consolidation Revision Case Nos. 92 of 1986 and 93 of 1986 by the respondent Joint Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur, in exercise of his powers under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (in short Consolidation Act) whereby and whereunder while allowing the aforesaid two revision applications in favour of the contesting respondents he has reversed and set aside the concurrent findings of fact recorded in favour of the petitioners with respect to the lands in dispute by the respondent Consolidation Officer, Desari, Vaishali as also by the appellate authority, namely, respondent Deputy Director of Consolidation, Vaishali. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners of both cases submits that the lands in question were recorded in their favour during the survey proceeding. When register of lands prepared under Section 9(2) of the Consolidation Act and statement of principles prepared under Section 9A of the Consolidation Act were published in terms of Section 10(1) of the Consolidation Act, no objection was raised by the contesting private respondents within the statutory period of time. However, such objections were raised belatedly. Despite bar created under Section 10-A of the Patna High Court CWJC No.5947 of 1988 dt.12-07-2013 6 Consolidation Act, separate objections filed on behalf of the contesting private respondents were considered and rejected by an order dated 14.9.1985 (Annexure-4 of C.W.J.C. No. 5947 of 1988). Thereafter, private respondents filed Consolidation Appeal Nos. 21 of 1985-86 and 22 of 1985-86 against orders passed in Objection Case Nos. 1413 of 1985 and 1415 of 1985 and both the appeals were disposed of by a common order dated 17.12.1985 (Annexure-5 of C.W.J.C. No. 5947 of 1988) rejecting the claims raised on behalf of contesting private respondents with respect to the lands in dispute. Contesting private respondents, being aggrieved by the original orders passed by the respondent Consolidation Officer, Desari, District- Vaishali and appellate orders passed by the respondent Deputy Director of Consolidation, Vaishali at Hajipur, preferred two revision applications being Revision Case Nos. 92 of 1986 and 93 of 1986 and both the revision cases have been allowed by the impugned common order dated 10.6.1988 reversing the findings recorded by the original authority as also by the appellate authority in favour of the petitioners with respect to the lands under dispute. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the concurrent findings of facts recorded in favour of the petitioners by the original authority as also by the appellate authority with respect to the lands under dispute have been reversed and set aside by the revisional authority by the impugned cryptic and non-speaking revisional order. It is next contended that the issues of right and title raised on behalf of the parties have been decided in favour of the contesting private respondents by the revisional authority in a most mechanical manner without considering the documents and materials produced by the parties in support of their respective cases in their proper perspective. Patna High Court CWJC No.5947 of 1988 dt.12-07-2013 7 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting private respondents has opposed the prayer and has supported the impugned revisional order. According to him, the orders passed by the respondent Consolidation Officer, Desari, Vaishali as also by the respondent Deputy Director of Consolidation, Vaishali at Hajipur were not in accordance with the mandate of law, therefore, it has rightly been reversed and set aside by the revisional authority. 7. After having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration and fresh decision by the revisional authority. Both sides have raised their claims of right and title with respect to the lands in dispute. Both sides are relying on the documents in their possession with respect to the lands in dispute. Unfortunately, the revisional authority while deciding the question of right and title has not considered all the relevant materials and documents produced by the parties, but practically by a non-speaking order he has reversed and set aside the findings recorded by the original authority as also by the appellate authority and has declared the right and title of the private respondents over the lands in dispute. While deciding the question of right and title, the revisional authority was required to go deep into the matter and only thereafter he could have come to a conclusion regarding right and title of the parties over the lands in question, but apparently that is lacking in the present case. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned revisional order dated 10.6.1988 passed in Consolidation Revision Case Nos. 92 of 1986 and 93 of 1986 by the respondent Joint Director of Consolidation is hereby set aside and now the matters are remitted back to the Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna, for deciding the aforesaid revision cases afresh strictly in accordance with law after Patna High Court CWJC No.5947 of 1988 dt.12-07-2013 8 giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to both sides. 9. In order to expedite the matter, the petitioners as also the contesting private respondents are hereby directed to appear before the Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna with a certified copy of the present order within a maximum period of six weeks from today, whereafter the matters shall be proceeded afresh and all endeavours shall be made to dispose of the matters at an early date preferably within a period of one year from the first date fixed by the respondent Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna for deciding the matters afresh. 10. Both the writ petitions stand allowed to the extent as indicated above. No costs. sudip/- N.A.F.R. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)