RABINDRA PRASAD SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both the cases a common question of law has been raised and the facts are almost identical not disputed. The sole question raised is whether within the meaning of Section 4 (c) of the Bihar (Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1956, (hereinafter called the Act) a mutation proceeding shall abate. Section 4 (c) of the Act reads as follows :

(2.) On a plain reading of Section 4 (c) it is obvious that every proceeding for the correction of the records is also within the ambit of Section 4 (c) of the Act and it will abate. We have no hesitation in holding that the mutation proceeding is a proceeding for correction of Revenue records and, therefore, it comes within the ambit and scope of Section 4 (c) of the Act. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deep Narayan Choudhary v. The State of Bihar, 1984 BLJR page 544, also held that mutation proceeding will be deemed to have abated under the said provision of Section 4 (c) of the Act. The facts are undisputed in this case that during the pendency of the mutation proceeding the consolidation proceeding had started. True, as contended by the respondents that it is not a judicial proceeding and does not confer any right, title or interest but once it is held that it is proceeding for correction of Revenue records, it will abate in terms of Section 4 (c) of the Act.

(3.) The counsel for the respondent no. 5 has urged that this question was not raised either before the Circle Officer or before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector. We see no reason why the petitioner could be shut out from raising this question before the Commissioner and in fact this was so raised before the Commissioner and wrongly rejected on the ground that it was not raised in the courts below. The petitioner contends that this question was agitated even before Circle Officer.