Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7465 of 1988 ====================================================== 1. Ram Nandan Singh @ Arun Kumar Singh, son of Shri Sheo Balak Singh, a resident of Village- Kasiyawan, P.S. Hulasganj, District- Gaya, at present Village Panhar Tola Khodaganj, P.S. Khodaganj, District- Nalanda. 2. Ram Chandra Ram, son of Late Bulak Ram, a resident of Village- and P.S. Khodaganj, District Nalanda (Expunged deceased petitioner no.2 vide order dated 20.10.1997). 2(a) Shankar Prasad 2(b) Vijay Prasad 2( c) Siddheshwar Prasad 2(d) Abhinandan Prasad, all are sons of late Ram Chandra Ram, All resident of Village- and P.S. Khodaganj, District Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Nand Keshwar Singh son of late Fulel Singh, a resident of Village- Kasiyawan, P.S. Hulasganj, District- Gaya, at present, Village and P.S. Khodaganj, District- Nalanda (expunged vide order dated 10.03.2006 and substituted by his legal heir and representative his son, namely, Brij Nandan Singh @ Bilat Singh, son of Late Nand Keshwar Singh. 2. Doman Prasad, son of Late Mukhlal Bhagat. 3. Shameshwar Bhagat 4. Ritlal Bhagat, both sons of late Dil Chand Bhagat, Nos. 2 to 4 residents of Village Bardaha, P.S. Khodaganj, District Nalanda. 5. The Consolidation Officer, Ekangarsarai, now at Hilsa, District Nalanda. 6. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Nalanda at Patna. 7. The Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna. 8. Naresh Prasad son of Late Radhey Prasad, resident of village- Sohjana, P.S. Islampur, District- Nalanda. 9. Ram Lakhan Prasad son of Late Shyam Prasad, resident of Maidi Khurd, P.S. Khudaganj, District- Nalanda. 10. Vijay Prasad son of Nathun Singh, resident of Village Maidi Khurd, P.S. Khudaganj, District- Nalanda. 11. Anandi Prasad son of Ramdhari Yadav, resident of village- Ramanuj Bag, P.S. Khodaganj, District Nalanda.
Legal Reasoning
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Singh, & Mr. Karunesh Kumar Thakur For the RespondentNo.1: Mr. Mahesh Prasad-2 For the Respondent No.5 to 7: Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, AC to GP-16 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER Patna High Court CWJC No.7465 of 1988 (16) dt.12-07-2013 2/6 16 12-07-2013 Heard the parties. The petitioners, being aggrieved by an order dated 05.05.1988 (Annexure- 10) passed in Consolidation Revision Case No. 5 of 1986 by the Principal of Consolidation Training Institute, Bihar, Patna, in exercise of his powers under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (in short “Consolidation Act”), affirming the order of the appellate authority, have preferred the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of the impugned orders passed by the appellate and revisional authorities under the Consolidation Act. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised a very short question. He submits that objection raised earlier by the petitioners under Section 10(2) of the Consolidation Act was not decided on merit and was left to be decided after disposal of the pending title suit, yet on that ground alone the subsequent order passed in their favour on the basis of objection filed by them and decided in their favour by the respondent Consolidation Officer, Ekangarsarai with respect to the lands in dispute, has arbitrarily been set aside by the appellate authority and affirmed by the revisional authority on the ground of res- Patna High Court CWJC No.7465 of 1988 (16) dt.12-07-2013 3/6 judicata. According to the learned Senior counsel, the issue of res judicata has wrongly been invoked by the appellate authority as also the revisional authority for rejecting the claim of the petitioners with respect to the lands in question. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents has opposed the prayer and has supported the impugned appellate order as also the impugned revisional order. While supporting the impugned orders, he has placed reliance on Section 10-E of the Consolidation Act and submits that since the petitioners had admittedly raised an objection and that objection
Decision
was disposed of by an order dated 3.10.1976 (Annexure-6) passed by the respondent Consolidation Officer, therefore, after republication of register of lands etc. in terms of Section 10-C of the Consolidation Act, the petitioners were not entitled to lodge fresh objection and the respondent Consolidation Officer was not legally entitled to entertain such objection. According to him, the appellate authority and revisional authority have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground of principles of res judicata. After having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires re-consideration and fresh decision. It is admitted Patna High Court CWJC No.7465 of 1988 (16) dt.12-07-2013 4/6 case of the parties that register of lands prepared under Section 9(2) and statements of principles prepared under Section 9A of the Consolidation Act was published in terms of Section 10(1) of the Consolidation Act. Whereafter the petitioners filed their objection under Section 10(2) of the Consolidation Act raising their claims with respect to the lands in question, which gave raise to Case No. 595 of 1975-76. However, the aforesaid objection case was disposed of by an order dated 03.10.1076 (Annexure-6) leaving the matter open to be decided after disposal of the title suit pending between the parties. Apparently, by the aforesaid order the objection raised on behalf of the petitioners in terms of Section 10(2) of the Consolidation Act was not decided on merit. It appears that, subsequently, the title suit pending between the parties abated under Section 4(C) of the Consolidation Act. Thereafter, when re-publication of the register of lands was made in terms of Section 10-C of the Consolidation Act, the petitioners filed fresh objection, which gave rise to Case No. 732 of 1982-83. Section 10E of the Consolidation Act mandates that objections filed under Sections 10-C and 10-D of the Consolidation Act shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of Sections 10(2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) of the Consolidation Act, provided the dispute was not decided earlier in Patna High Court CWJC No.7465 of 1988 (16) dt.12-07-2013 5/6 accordance with the provisions of Sections 10(3), (4), (5) or (6) of the Consolidation Act. It also mandates that if any dispute was decided earlier in terms of Section 10 of the Consolidation Act, then that shall not be reopened on republication of the register of lands under Section 10-C of the Consolidation Act. In the present case this Court finds that the objection filed earlier by the petitioners under Section 10(2) of the Consolidation Act was not decided on merit, but this was left open to be decided after disposal of the title suit. That being the position, the fresh objection filed by the petitioners under Section 10-C of the Consolidation Act was rightly decided by the respondent Consolidation Officer by an order dated 27.10.1984 (Annexure-8). That being the position, the respondent Deputy Director of Consolidation, the appellate authority and the Principal of the Consolidation Training Institute, Patna, while exercising the revisional powers, have committed error of law in deciding the appeal and revision application and by holding that the claim raised on behalf of the petitioners in terms of Section 10-C of the Consolidation Act was barred by the principles of res judicata. In fact, the revisional authority has completely failed to take into consideration the import of Sections 10-C and 10-E of the Consolidation Act. Patna High Court CWJC No.7465 of 1988 (16) dt.12-07-2013 6/6 For the reasons recorded above, the impugned revisional order dated 05.05.1088 (Annexure-10) passed in Consolidation Revision Case No. 5 of 1986 by the Principal of the Consolidation Training Institute, Patna is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna for fresh decision in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to both sides. This is made clear that the merits of the case of the parties with respect to the lands under dispute have not been gone into by this Court and it is left to be decided by the respondent Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna, after remand by this order. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. The parties are left to bear their own costs. BTiwary/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)