Bishwanath Yadav v. The State of Bihar

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents 1 to 4 : Mrs. Kiran Kumari, A.C. to GA 7 For the Respondents 6 & 7 : Mr. Manoj Kumar (Manoj), Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 5 20-08-2013 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 3083 of 2013 The present Interlocutory Application has been filed 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.5500 of 2008 (5) dt.20-08-2013 on behalf of the petitioners stating therein that during the pendency of the main writ petition, respondent No.5 Most. Ganga Devi died on 1.8.2012 leaving behind her only daughter Urmila Devi as her heir and legal representative. Aforesaid Urmila Devi is already o record as respondent No. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 does not oppose the prayer for substitution. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, prayer for substitution is allowed. Let the name of deceased respondent No.5 be expunged from the array of the parties in the main writ petition and office shall make a note that her heir and legal representative is already on record as respondent No. 6. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re. C.W.J.C. No. 5500 of 2008 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated

19.2.2008 (Annexure-3) passed in Consolidation Revision case No. 81 of 2007 by the respondent Joint Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur, whereby while allowing the aforesaid revision application filed on behalf of the private respondent Nos. 5 to 7, he has set aside the order dated 12.4.2007 (Annexure-1) passed in Case No. 200 of 2006-07 by the respondent Consolidation Officer, Kateya, Gopalganj, as also the appellate order dated 20.11.2007 (Annexure-2) passed in Consolidation Appeal case No. 22 of 2007 by the respondent Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siwan.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that late Chaturi Yadav, father of the 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.5500 of 2008 (5) dt.20-08-2013 petitioners had purchased the lands under dispute through a register deed of sale dated 11.5.1966 and since then the aforesaid purchaser and after his death his sons i.e. the present petitioners have been coming in possession over the lands under dispute, total area being 2 bighas 7 kathas and 7 dhurs. It is contended that register of lands under Section 9(2) and statement of principles under section 9A of The Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act,1956 ( in short ‘Consolidation Act’) were prepared in the name of the father of the petitioners and were finally published under Section 10(1) of the Consolidation Act.

4. It is claimed that the private respondents or their ancestors, being aggrieved by the aforesaid publication, filed their objection under section 10 (2) of the Consolidation Act giving rise to Case No. 200 of 2006-07. However, after hearing the parties and on consideration of the materials available on the record, the respondent Consolidation officer, Kateya, Gopalganj passed the order dated 12.4.2007 (Annexure-1) rejecting the objection filed on behalf of the private respondents or their ancestors.

5. Thereafter, Nageshwar Pandey, husband of respondent No. 5 and father of respondent No.6 as also respondent No. 7, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 12.4.2007 (Annexure-1), preferred Consolidation Appeal No.22 of 2007, which was finally heard under Section 10(6) of the Consolidation Act and was rejected by the order dated 20.11.2007 ( Annexure-2) by the respondent Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siwan.

6. Private respondent Nos. 5 to 7, being still aggrieved, preferred Consolidation Revision No. 81 of 2007, 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.5500 of 2008 (5) dt.20-08-2013 which was finally heard by the respondent Joint Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur, who by the impugned revisional order dated 19.2.2008 (Annexure-3) has allowed the aforesaid revision application and has set aside the orders passed by the original authority as also the appellate authority.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has highlighted that the impugned revisional order passed by the respondent Joint Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur is practically a non-speaking order and no valid reasons have been disclosed for setting aside and reversing the original order as also the appellate order. It is also contended that though the petitioners have purchased the lands in question through a registered sale deed in the year 1966, but the claim of the petitioners on the basis of aforesaid registered sale deed has not at all been considered, and patently on extraneous consideration he has allowed the claim of private respondents after setting aside the orders passed by the respondent Consolidation Officer, Kateya, Gopalganj as also the respondent Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siwan.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners, and has made an endeavour to support the impugned revisional order.

9. After having heard the parties, and on consideration of the materials available on the record, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration and fresh decision by the revisional authority.

10. Apparently, no valid and sufficient reasons have been disclosed for setting aside and reversing the orders passed by 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.5500 of 2008 (5) dt.20-08-2013 the appellate authority and original authority. The validity or otherwise of the registered sale deed in favour of father of the petitioners has not at all been taken into consideration by the respondent Joint Director of Consolidation while passing the impugned revisional order allowing the claim of the private respondents with respect to the lands under dispute.

11. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned revisional order dated 19.2.2008 (Annexure-3) passed Consolidation Revision No. 81 of 2007 by the respondent Joint Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna, for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the petitioners and private respondents.

12. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Kanth/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)