BISHWANATH RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the writ petition, Learned Counsel for the State and Mr. Ratna Deep Prasad, Learned Counsel for the private-respondents. As pleadings are complete, with consent of parties this writ petition is disposed of at this stage itself. Challenge is to the order dated 29.6.1999 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur passed in Revision Case No. 62/98 affirming the order dated 13.1.1998 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Vaishali in Appeal No. 1/97.

(2.) A very piquant situation has arisen in this case. Briefly stated the undisputed facts are that a dispute arising out of consolidation proceedings was taken in appeal in terms of Section 10(6) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the Assistant Director of Consolidation. It was heard and disposed of by Deputy Director of Consolidation exercising the powers of Assistant Director of Consolidation. Petitioner being aggrieved preferred a revision in terms of Section 35 of the Act. That was heard and disposed of by the Deputy Director of Consolidation exercising the powers of Director Consolidation which order is under challenge.

(3.) Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel makes brief submissions that once a Deputy Director of Consolidation had exercised appellate jurisdiction in the matter, then the Deputy Director of Consolidation could not exercise revisions! jurisdiction over his own appellate order and such exercise of jurisdiction was bad. This situation, where the appeal is heard by the same authority who then decides to revise its own appellate order, has come about because of piquant situation and scheme obtaining under this Act.