SUDAMIA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing Annexure 6. Annexure 6 contains an order of the Director of Consolidation under Sec. 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act).

(2.) By Annexure 6 the Director of Consolidation has upheld the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer under Sec. 12 (2) of the Act. The Assistant Consolidation Officer declared under Sec. 12 (2) of the Act that petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 should be recorded half in respect of their disputed lands. The survey authorities also declared half and half of both the petitioners and respondents 5 and 6. The petitioner raised objection under Sec. 103-A of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885. Her objection was rejected by the survey authorities. In the survey entry the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 were declared as having half and half share in respect of the disputed land. Register under Sec. 9 of the Act was prepared to'that effect. The petitioner raised an objection about the entry in the register under Sec. 10 (2) of the Act. Her objection petition was allowed. It is stated by the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 that thereafter respondents 5 and 6 preferred an appeal under Sec.10 (6) of the Act which was rejected by the appellate authority. It is therefore clear that the petitioner availed the opportunity as laid down under Sec. 10 of the Act. In other words, respondents 5 and 6 raised an objection about the correctness of the entry before the appellate authority under Sec. 10(6) of the Act. When the draft scheme was prepared under Sec. 12 of the Act. In other words, respondents 5 and 6 again raised objection which they were entitled to do so under Sec.12 (2) of the Act. The objection was allowed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer under Sec. 12 (2) of the Act. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Sec.12-A of the Act and she succeeded in appeal. The order of the appellate authority is contained in Annexure 5. Against that order respondents 5 and 6 preferred a revision under Sec. 35 of the Act before the Consolidation Officer and respondents 5 and 6 succeeded there.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents are not entitled to raise objection under Sec. 12 (2) of the Act as they did not raise any such objection under Sec. 10 of this Act in respect of the entry made in the register. We are unable to accept this contention. It is clear that the survey authorities made entries in favour of respondents 5 and 6 as also in favour of the petitioner. The survey entry suggested that both the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 are entitled to half and half in respect of the disputed property. The petitioner raised objection in respect of the entry in the register and she succeeded before the Assistant Consolidation Officer. Against that order respondents 5 and 6 preferred an appeal under Sec. 10 (6) of the Act It is therefore clear that respondents 5 and 6 raised objection about the entry in the register under Sec. 10 (6) of the Act and as such respondents 5 and 6 are entitled to raise such objection under Sec. 12 (2) of the Act.