Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.821 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Rajesh Ranjan S/O Late Jitendra Kumar, resident of Village- Mapatpur, P.S.- Ramgarh, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua) 2. Brajesh Kumar Son of Late Lallet Narain Lal, Resident of Village- Mapatpur, P.S.- Ramgarh, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua) 3. Binod Kr. Srivastava son of late Lallet Narain Lal, Resident Of Village- Mapatpur, P.S.- Ramgarh, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua) (Expunged vide order dated 11.04.2013). (i) Rita Verma W/O Late Binod Kr. Srivastava, Resident of Village- Mapatpur, P.S.- Ramgarh, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua) 4. Rajiv Ranjan Srivastav @ Rajiv Ranjan S.O Late Lallet Narain Lal Resident of Village- Mapatpur, P.S.- Ramgarh, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua) .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Director Consolidation, Bihar, Budh Marg, Patna 3. The Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Rohtas At Sasaram 4. The Consolidation Officer, Ramgarh, District- Kaimur (Earlier District- Rohtas) 5. Arun Kumar Srivastav Son of Sri Kusum Bihar Lal, Resident of Village- Mapatpur, P.S. Ramgarh, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua) 6. Ajit Kumar Srivastava Son of Sri Kusum Bihar Lal Resident of Village- Mapatpur, P.S. Ramgarh, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua) 7. Sanjeet Kumar Son of Sri Kusum Bihar Lal Resident of Village- Mapatpur, P.S. Ramgarh, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua) 8. Sujit Kumar Srivastava Son of Sri Kusum Bihar Lal Resident of Village- Mapatpur, P.S. Ramgarh, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua) 9. Kusum Bihar Lal Son of Late Jamuna Lal Resident of Village- Mapatpur, P.S. Ramgarh, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua)
Legal Reasoning
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Keshav Shrivastava, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bhubneshwar Prasad For the Respondent No.1 to 4: Ms. Jahan Ara, AC to AAG- V For the Respondent No. 5 to 9: Mr. Sanjay Kumar @ Manu Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 9 09-09-2013 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition Patna High Court CWJC No.821 of 2008 (9) dt.09-09-2013 2/6 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 16.07.2007 (Annexure-10) passed by the respondent Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna in Consolidation Revision Case No. 73 of 2001, whereby in purported exercise of his powers under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (in short “the Act”) he has allowed the claim of respondent no. 5 to 8 with respect to the lands under dispute. 3. It is not in dispute that with respect to the lands under dispute, register of lands under Section 9(2) of the Act was prepared in the name of Most. Chandra Jyota Kuar and, accordingly, it was published under Section 10(1) of the Act. It is also not in dispute that objections were filed under Section 10(2) of the Act by the petitioners or their ancestors as also by the private respondent no. 5 to 9 or their ancestors, besides some other persons, who all were/are claiming their right and title over the lands under dispute with respect to their respective share of lands, which originally belonged to aforesaid Most. Chandra Jyota Kuar. In view of objections filed under Section 10(2) of the Act, Objection Case No. 12 of 1975-76 was started by the respondent Consolidation Officer, Ramgarh. The ancestor of the petitioners or they themselves raised their claims with respect to the lands under dispute on the ground that a deed of gift was executed by the aforesaid Most. Chandra Jyota Kuar as far back as on 31.04.1964, as also on other grounds. However, the respondent no. 5 to 9 are disputing such claims raised on behalf of the petitioners. According to them, no such deed of gift was ever executed by Most. Chandra Jyota Kuar and the petitioners are/were not related to the aforesaid Most. Chandra Jyota Kuar and, therefore, they Patna High Court CWJC No.821 of 2008 (9) dt.09-09-2013 3/6 have no legal right and title with respect to any land belonging to the aforesaid Most. Chandra Jyota Kuar. 4. The respondent Consolidation Officer, Ramgarh, after considering the materials available on record, passed the final order dated 11.02.1976 (Annexure-7) in the aforesaid Objection Case No. 12 of 1975-76 allowing the claims raised on behalf of the ancestor of the petitioners as also claims raised on behalf of the ancestor of the respondent No.9. 5. Though no appeal was filed by the ancestor of the petitioners or the ancestors of the private respondents, yet Appeal No. 243 of 1975-76 was filed by some other persons before the respondent Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rohtas at Sasaram, which was finally dismissed by an order dated 25.08.1977 (Annexure-8). 6. It is admitted case of the parties that the matter rested there, after the aforesaid appellate order. No revision application was filed either by the petitioners or their ancestors or by the private respondent no. 5 to 9 or their ancestors. In the meantime, draft consolidation scheme was confirmed in terms of Section 13 of the Act and thereby the mauza in question was confirmed. However, after a long time in the year 2001, respondent no. 5 filed an application under Section 35 of the Act giving rise to Consolidation Revision Case No. 73 of 2001, which has been allowed by the impugned revisional order dated 16.07.2007 (Annexure-10) passed by the respondent Director of Consolidation Bihar, Patna, whereby the claim raised by the respondent no. 5 for himself and his three brothers with respect to the lands under dispute has been allowed. This Court further finds that by subsequent order dated 25.07.2007 the respondent Director of Patna High Court CWJC No.821 of 2008 (9) dt.09-09-2013 4/6 Consolidation, Bihar, Patna, in purported exercise of powers under Section 33A of the Act has allowed the claim of respondent no. 5 with respect to some more area of land. 7. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has raised various points with respect to the validity and correctness of the impugned revisional order dated 16.07.2007 as also the subsequent order dated 25.07.2007 (Annexure-10) passed by the respondent Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna. Similarly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 5 to 9 has raised various points assailing the validity and correctness of the original order dated 11.02.1976 (Annexure-7) passed by the respondent Consolidation Officer, Ramgarh. It is contended that if the impugned revisional order is set aside, then that will revive another illegal order passed by the respondent Consolidation Officer, Ramgarh, as according to the learned counsel, claims of the private respondents or their ancestors were not taken into consideration by the respondent Consolidation Officer, Ramgarh before passing the aforesaid final order. Therefore, according to him, the matter is fit to be relegated to Civil court of competent jurisdiction for determination of right and title of the parties with respect to the lands claimed by them. 8. After having heard the parties, this Court finds that with respect to the unit/ village in question, where the lands under dispute are situate, as per common case of the parties, notification under Section 26A of the Act has not been issued. Therefore, in view of bar created under Section 4(b) of the Act, a civil suit cannot be entertained at this stage. Hence, at this stage, the petitioners cannot be relegated to the civil court. As noticed above, the village in question was confirmed earlier, yet revision Patna High Court CWJC No.821 of 2008 (9) dt.09-09-2013 5/6 application under Section 35 of the Act, filed on behalf of the respondent no. 5, was mechanically entertained. In the considered opinion of this Court, once mauza in question was confirmed, the respondent Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna, could not have decided the right and title of the parties with respect to the lands in question and on that count, the impugned revisional order dated 16.07.2007 as also the subsequent order dated 25.07.2007, which is part of Annexure-10, cannot be sustained in law. Further, this Court finds that the claim of the petitioners or their ancestor with respect to the lands in question is based on a deed of gift allegedly executed by Most. Chandra Jyota Kuar. The respondent Consolidation Officer, Ramgarh has not considered all the aspects with respect to alleged deed of gift or the relationship of the petitioners vis a vis the private respondents with that of Most. Chandra Jyota Kuar, yet their respective claims were decided by an order dated 11.02.1976 (Annexure-7). 9. Learned counsel for the private respondents has pointed out that, in fact, they were not given reasonable opportunity of hearing by the respondent Consolidation Officer, Ramgarh, while passing the aforesaid final order. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court the order dated 11.02.1976 (Annexure-7) passed by the respondent Consolidation Officer, Ramgarh also cannot be sustained, though aforesaid order dated 11.02.1976 was affirmed by the appellate order dated 25.08.1977 (Annexure-8). 10. In the given nature of dispute between the parties and the factual background of the case, this Court is of the opinion that entire matters require reconsideration and fresh decision right from the stage of Section 10(2) of the Act, after giving a Patna High Court CWJC No.821 of 2008 (9) dt.09-09-2013 6/6 reasonable opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the petitioners and respondent no. 5 to 9. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the order dated 11.02.1976 (Annexure-7) passed in Objection Case No. 12 of 1975-76 by the respondent Consolidation Officer, Ramgarh, the appellate order dated 25.08.1977 (Annexure-8) passed by the respondent Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rohtas at Sasaram and the impugned revisional order dated 16.07.2007 as also 25.07.2007 (Annexure-10) passed in Consolidation Revision Case No. 73 of 2001 by the respondent Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna, are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent Consolidation Officer, Ramgarh with a direction to decide the case of the parties under Section 10(2) of the Act afresh strictly in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned. The parties shall be at liberty raise all the points, which are available to them under law with respect to the lands under dispute. The respondent Consolidation Officer, Ramgarh shall be obliged to dispose of their claims in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order.
Decision
12. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. BTiwary/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)