NAVONATH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners have challenged the orders, dated 5.11.1976 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Pupari, Sitamarhi in Consolidation Case No. 402 of 1976 (Annexure-1), order dated 28.2.1984 passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case No. 137 of 1983 (Annexure-2), order dated 17.2.1988 passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Sitamarhi in Appeal No. 99 of 1984 (Annexure-3) and order dated 20.11.1989 passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna in Revision Case No. 831 of 1988 (Annexure-5).

(2.) The plots in question which are the subject matter of dispute have been described in paragraph 3 of this writ application. The lands originally belonged to Bharat Kurmi, the heirs of Bharat Kurmi are the Respondents in this case. The name of Bharat Kurmi was recorded in the cadastral survey, subsequently in the revisional survey, the names of the Petitioners came to be recorded which has led to this dispute. One of the heirs of Bharat Kurmi, namely, Ram Bilash Rai filed an application under Section 9 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On 7.10.1976, a general notice was issued. On the next date i.e. 23.10.1976, the matter was heard by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the Respondents claim, that since the lands are the ancestral lands and the cadastral survey was in their names, chaks should be created in the names of the Respondents. Notices were issued to Shiv Nandan Thakur and the matter was fixed for hearing on 5.11.1976. In the order dated 5.11.1976, it has been noted that the notices were duly received and it is further recorded that no documents were produced on behalf of the Respondents, and as such it was ordered that the name of Ram Bilash Rai should be recorded in the revenue records.

(3.) The case of the Petitioners is that they had purchased some of the lands which are subject matter of dispute, from the ancestors of the recorded tenant, in the year 1928. It is also stated that notices in fact were not received by the Petitioners, the case was decided behind their backs and the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, within a period of twelve days indicates that in fact it was passed in a hurry without actually following the principles of natural justice. It is also the submission on behalf of the Petitioners, that the Assistant Consolidation Officer should not have passed the order as contained in Annexure-1, as he was bound to hear the objections of the parties and try to settle the matter between them amicably, and pass orders on a compromise being reached between the parties. The exact language of Section 10(3) of the Act is as follows: