Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2524 of 2003 1. Lalan Prasad Singh, son of Late Akhileshwar Prasad Singh (expunged vide order dated 8.5.2003) (a) Smt Shail Rani wife of Late Lalan Prasad Singh (b) Devesh Prasad Singh, son of Late Lalan Prasad Singh (c) Mukesh Prasad Singh, son of Late Lalan Prasad Singh all residents of Village Lakhanchand, PS Mokamah, district Patna, residing at Vilalge Jhapahan, PS Ahiyapur, District presently Muzaffarpur 2. Binay Kumar Singh @ Baban Babu, son of late Akhileshwari Prasad Singh (a) Shanti Devi wife of Late Binay Kumar Singh @ Baban Babu (b) Bhavesh Kumar Singh (c) Karunesh Kumar Singh – both sons of late Binay Kumar Singh @Baban Babu 2(a) to 2(c) are residents of Lakhandchand, PS Mokama, Dist. Patna at present residing at Jhapha PS Ahiyapur, Distt. Muzaffarpur (d) Bibha Roy, daughter of Binay Kumar Singh @ Baban Babu and wife of K K Roy, East of Bhola Talkies, Samastipur Dist. Samastipur (e) Nibha Singh daughter of Binay Kumar Singh @ Baban Babu and wife of Rajesh Kumar, Bambhai House, New Area, Piperpanti, Gaya (f) Ritu Singh daughter of Binay Kumar Singh @ Baban Babu and wife of Sanjay Kumar, Suhird Nagar, Opp. Circuit House, Begusarai (g) Ruchi Devi daughter of Binay Kumar Singh @ Baban Babu, wife of Rajesh Kumar, resident of Village Chintamanichak, PS Mokama, Dist. Patna .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director of Consolidation Bihar, Patna 3. The Joint Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur 4. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur 5. The Consolidation Officer, Musahari, Dist. Muzaffarpur 6. The Circle Officer, Musahari, Dist. Muzaffarpur 7. Arun Kumar Prasad Singh alias Arun Kumar 8. Pulin Kumar Pd. Singh Serials 7 and 8 sons of Late Hari Shankar Pd. Singh, both residents of village Jhapahan, PS Ahiyapur, Dist. Muzaffarpur, presently residing at Vilalge Kuchawan, Mirzamurad, PS Mirzamurad, District Varanasi (U.P.) 9. Rajesh Kumar Singh alias Kundan Kumar son of Late Hari Narain Prasad Singh, resident of Village Lakhanchand, PS Mokamah, Dist. Patna
Legal Reasoning
10. Smt. Sangita Bajoria w/o Shyam Sundar Bajoria 11. Smt. Sangita Bajoria w/o Anand Kumar Bajoria Both residents of Mohalla Sikandarpur, PS …., town and Distt. Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : Patna High Court CWJC No.2524 of 2003 (10) dt.24-09-2013 2 For the Petitioners : Mr. Keshav Srivastava, Sr. Advocate Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh For Respondent no. 1 to 6 : Ms.Nutan Sahay, AC to SC I For Respondent no. 7 & 8 Mr. Partha Sarathy For Respondent no. 10 & 11 : Mr. Sandeep Kumar and Mr. Mukesh For the Intervener Sr. Advocate : Mr. Ram Suresh Rai, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Sidheshwari Prasad Singh Mr. Sunil Srivastava ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 10 24-09-2013 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 15.3.2001 (Annexure-13) passed in Consolidation Revision Case No. 726 of 1986 by the respondent Joint Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur, in purported exercise of his powers under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (in short ‘Act’). 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has assailed the validity and correctness of the impugned order primarily on three grounds, namely, (i) the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as notices were never served upon the petitioners before passing the impugned final order (ii) the impugned revisional order is a non-speaking order and has not considered the Patna High Court CWJC No.2524 of 2003 (10) dt.24-09-2013 3 case of all the parties in its proper perspective, and (iii) Shri Jagannath Sharma, who was acting as Joint Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur, was in fact holding the post of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Purnea, and was not vested with the powers under Section 35 of the Act. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the impugned revisional order passed by him is wholly without jurisdiction. In support of his above contention, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attentions, to the specific averments made in paragraph- 16 to 18 of the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.7, wherein it has been asserted that no notice was issued or served upon the petitioners or any other heirs of late Akhileshwar Prasad Singh. The aforesaid reply affidavit has been filed before this Court after service of copy on the counsels for the private respondents, yet no rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the private respondents disputing the correctness of the aforesaid assertions. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents have opposed the prayer made in the present writ application and have attempted to support the impugned revisional order. However, it was fairly conceded that by the impugned revisional order findings of facts with respect to Patna High Court CWJC No.2524 of 2003 (10) dt.24-09-2013 4 the case of all the parties have not been recorded and decided by a reasoned and speaking order. 5. After having heard the parties and on consideration of the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration and fresh decision on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice alone, without going into the controversy as to whether Shri Jagannath Sharma, the respondent Joint Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur was authorized to exercise the powers under Section 35 of the Act or not. This Court is inclined to remit the matter back, yet for another reason that the impugned revisional order dated 15.3.2001 (Annexure-13) is manifestly a non-speaking order. Apparently, it has not considered the case of all the parties including the petitioners as also the private respondents in their proper perspective by looking into all the relevant documents/ materials produced by them. Admittedly, rules of natural justice was not followed, so far as the petitioners are concerned, while the impugned revisional order was being passed by the respondent Joint Director of Consolidation. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned order dated 15.3.2001 (Annexure-13) passed in Consolidation Revision Case No.726 of 1986 by the respondent Joint Director of Patna High Court CWJC No.2524 of 2003 (10) dt.24-09-2013 5 Consolidation, Muzaffarpur, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna, with a direction to consider the case of the parties afresh strictly in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned. The parties shall be at liberty to raise all the issues available to them under the law regarding the lands under dispute, which shall be gone into by the respondent Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna while passing a fresh order. 7. With the aforesaid observations and direction
Decision
the writ petition stands finally disposed of. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) mrl