SURESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order, dated 27.3.2009 passed by the Director, Consolidation, Bihar in Revision Case Nos. 1261/1982/344/1998.

(2.) The facts are that Janki Agrawal had three sons, namely, Sri Govind Prasad Agrawal (GPA), Sri Jagarnath Prasad Agrawal, (JPA) and Harish Chandra Prasad Agrawal. It is admitted by both the parties that there was a partition between three brothers in the year 1967. The dispute relates to C.S. plot No. 28, chak No. 140, measuring a total of 1.14 decimals, out of which 22 decimals of lands are in dispute. The plots are situate in Village-Kheri within Bhagwanpur Anchal in the district of Kaimur. In the 1967 partition 92 decimals of C.S. plot No. 28 was allotted to the two contesting parties and the third brother was granted 78 decimals of land. The Petitioner's case is that a chak of 92 decimals of land ought to be carved out in his name in accordance with the registered partition, whereas the case of the Respondents is that after the partition the parties felt difficulty in cultivating the lands allotted to them and, therefore, GPA gave 22 decimals of land out of C.S. plot No. 28 to JPA; in turn JPA gave 28 decimals of land in R.S. plot No. 170 to the heirs of GPA and as such it is the case of the Respondents that the chak allotted in the Consolidation Proceeding Nos. 78/58/1974-75 disposed of on 15.10.1976 has correctly been allotted.

(3.) The matter, however, did not end with the order, dated 15.10.1976 although no appeal or revision was filed against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. The Petitioner, thereafter, woke up and filed Appeal No. 441/1981 which was dismissed on 30.10.1982 on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable being hopelessly time barred. Against the order passed in the appeal the Petitioner filed Revision No. 11261/1982 which was dismissed on similar ground on 30.7.1987. Thereafter, the Petitioner came in a writ petition being CWJC No. 5478/1987 before this Court which was also dismissed. The Petitioner thereafter filed a review of the order passed in the writ petition. This Court while refusing the review recorded the fact that the writ petition was mainly dismissed on the ground that the application preferred by the Petitioner under Section 10(B) of the Consolidation Act was not maintainable and the cause of action against the initial order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 15.10.1976, in fact they should have preferred an appeal.