MD.ISHAQUE ANSARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.12.1992 passed by the Joint Director, Consolidation, Gaya in Revision Case No. 1455 of 1990-91 by which there was a direction to enter the name of the private Respondents in the revenue records and grant them rent receipts.

(2.) The Petitioner has filed this writ application as Secretary to the Joundhi Qabristan and also in his individual capacity. The case of the Petitioner is that the land in question was Gair Mazarua Aam land, used as Qabristan. The case of the Petitioner is that at the time of consolidation proceeding, the rent register was prepared showing Khata No. 278, Plot No. 97, measuring 0.38 decimals and lands appertaining to Khata No. 11, Plot No. 100, measuring 0.77 decimals as Qabristan. The aforesaid lands correspond to Chak Plot Nos. 152 and 156, appertaining to Chak Plot No. 486. In the remarks column of the said rent register, AWAIDH (srita) possession of Dhanuk Pasi and Cheddi Pasi was found to be recorded.

(3.) The Petitioner filed an application before the Director, Consolidation for correction of. the rent register. The matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer. On remand, the Consolidation Officer rejected the application of the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner could not produce any document to show that the lands had been settled as Qabristan by the State of Bihar. Being aggrieved with the findings of the Consolidation Officer, the Petitioner filed an appeal. The appellate authority vide Annexure-6, dated 6.11.1998 after hearing the State Counsel and the ancestors of the present Petitioner, recorded that the land in question is a Qabristan and it was also noticed by the appellate authority that there was no material to show that the land adjacent to the Qabristan, also belongs to the State of Bihar, were part and parcel of the Qabristan. This finding remained unchallenged by the private Respondents or the State of Bihar. Thereafter, the Respondents moved before the Joint Director, Consolidation by filing an application under Section 35 of the Consolidation Act. The claim of the Respondents is that they have been settled the lands described in the order sheet by the State authorities and also produced the copy of the parwana issued to them alongwith the rent receipts. The Director, Consolidation allowed the application of the Respondents. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.12.1992 and has, therefore, moved before this Court.