BIDYANAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders contained in Annexures 1 and 3 passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation, Head Quarter, Patna and the Consolidation Officer, Guraul respectively.

(2.) THE short facts are that respondent no. 5 had filed an application before respondent no. 2 for correction of the entry made in the revisional survey. THE case of respondent no.5 is that C. S. Khesra No. 1860 and 1861 measuring 9 decimals was purchased by a registered sale deed, dated 28.3.1955. After the execution of the sale deed, respondent no. 5 has been living on the said plots of land which contains a house and the court yard. In the revisional survey plot nos. 1860 and 1861 were numbered as plot no. 4802 and was entered in the name of ancestor of respondent no.5. However, instead of entering 9 decimals in the revisional survey khatiyan, it was shown to measure 8 decimals only. It is the case of respondent no. 5, that 1 (one) decimal of land was included on the east side of plot no. 4803 which belongs to the petitioner.

(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the order on the ground that the Deputy Director Consolidation had no power to entertain the revision application on the basis of the judgment in the case of Ramotar Yadav vs. Azaz Haider, 2001 (1) PLJR 226. A Division Bench of this court in the case of Krishna Singh vs. Deputy Director Consolidation, 2008 (4) PLJR 63 has interpreted section 34(2) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 and held that if there is proper authorization to the Deputy Collector to exercise the powers of revision by the Director Consolidation, after obtaining sanction of the State Government, there can be no scope of setting aside the order, on the ground that it is without jurisdiction. THE Division Bench has taken into consideration the case of Ramotar Yadav and Jhori Bind vs. State of Bihar, 2007 (3) PLJR 648.