BISHESHWAR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE relief claimed in C.W.J.C. No. 5614 of 1987 is consequential to the result of C.W.J.C. No. 5615 of 1987, as such both the writ applications are being disposed of by a common judgment. C.W.J.C. No. 5615 of 1987 In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders contained in Annexures 1, 2 and 3, which have been passed by the Consolidation Authorities under the provisions of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Consolidation Act').

(2.) THE petitioner and respondent No. 5 are the descendents of a common ancestor, Ramnevaj Singh. Ramnevaj Singh had two wives. From the first wife, he had one son Baldeo Singh. From his second wife he had two sons, Jagdish Singh and Rajmohan Singh. Jagdish Singh died issueless in 1934 leaving behind his wife Ramlochan Kuer and, therefore, she succeeded to the properties of her husband at that time as a limited owner but pursuant to Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, she became the full owner thereof, Rajmohan Singh died in 1962 leaving behind his two married daughters including Tara Devi, who is respondent No. 5 to the writ application.

(3.) IN the above circumstances, a question had fallen before the Consolidation Authorities as to who was the legal heir of late Ramlochan Kuer on the date of her death i.e. on 16-9-1975. According to the uncontroverted facts on record on the date of death of the intestate two relatives falling in the category of class II heirs were surviving, namely, (i) Baldeo Singh, the step brother of her husband and (ii) Tara Devi (Respondent No. 5), daughter of Jagdish Singh, full brother of her husband. Only these two persons are the competing heirs in the present case. It is so because Ramdeo and Ramnandaa are claiming only through late Baldeo Singh.