HARSA MAJHI Vs. PURNA CHANDRA MAJHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is directed against the revisional order passed by the Commissioner in a consolidation proceeding.

(2.) THE undisputed genealogy is as follows : Sukru (dead)

(3.) THERE is no dispute that at the time of alienation Rahi and Kausalya were the limited female owners. Alienation by a limited female owner is binding on the reversioners if the alienation is for legal necessity. However, if the alienation is not for legal necessity, the alienation is valid only during the life -time of such limited owner and on the death of the limited owner the property is to revert back to the reversioners. In the present case, there is no evidence nor any finding relating to the legal necessity. If it is found that the property was alienated for legal necessity, then the property has to be recorded in the name of the purchaser or his legal heirs. However, if it is found that the alienation is not supported by legal necessity, the question of date of death of the two limited owners would assume importance. In such a case, the reversioner has to sue for recovery of possession of the alienated property within twelve years from the date of death of the limited owner. Since the forums below have not applied their mind to all these aspects, it is necessary that the judgments passed by the consolidation authorities including the revisional authority should be set aside and the matter should be remanded to the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer shall now give opportunity of hearing to both the parties and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law. The fact that the alienation had been unsuccessfully challenged under the C.P.Tenancy Act would be of no consequence. The parties are directed to appear before the Consolidation Officer on 30th November, 2000.