HRIDYA NAND PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the primal question arises as to whether the application filed by the appellant under Section 10B of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter, in short, referred to as the 'Act') was maintainable, in view of the fact that the objection raised by the appellant purportedly under Section 10(2) of the Act was earlier rejected. Another point which is also to be considered is as to whether the application under Section 10B of the Act was maintainable in view of a subsequent event of abatement of the suit at the appellate stage. The next question is as to whether the Revisional authority in stead of dismissing the revision application on the ground that the application under Section 10B of the Act was not maintainable, in view of the rejection of the application under Section 10(2) of the Act, ought to have decided the case on merit.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that admittedly one Anarkali Devi was originally the land holder of C.S. Khata No.4, plot nos.291, 279, 395 and 396 having an area of 1.65 acres of village Sonbarsa P.S.Dinara in the district of Rohtas. As per the claim of the writ-petitioner-appellant, the original land holder sold the aforesaid land in favour of Manbaso Kuer (Devi) by registered sale-deed in the year 1917 for consideration money of Rs.16/-. Later on in the year 1919 Manbaso Kuer (Devi), orally sold the land to the father of petitioner no.1 for Rs.19/- by way of oral sale and in pursuance thereof, she had handed over the original sale- deed to the father of petitioner no.1 and since then, he is having possession of that registered sale-deed. In the year 1936, in between land-lords, there was a partition suit of Tauzi of land-holders. The suit land had fallen in the share of landlord Sri Ambika Mishra. Earlier it was under Bhoali rent and thereafter it was converted into Nakadi Rent and, accordingly, the ancestors of the petitioner- appellant were paying rent which was being accepted by the landlord. It was further averred by the appellant that the ex- landlords were Yajman of respondents and in connivance with the respondents, at the time of vesting, the landlord filed return in favour of the respondents and, accordingly, Jamabandi was created in the name of the respondents. It was further asserted that Ambika Mishra filed Rent Suit No. 1555 of 1953/71 of 1954 against the respondents for realization of rent. In that rent suit, the petitioner-appellant were not made party, having got knowledge of the same they appeared in the court as interveners but with the connivance of the respondents and Ambika Mishra, the case was closed as the rent was purportedly paid by the respondents. In 1962, the appellant filed Title Suit No. 25/306 of 1962 for declaration of title and confirmation of possession of the suit land. The suit was decreed in favour of the appellant. The respondents challenged the decree before the appellate court and the appellate court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, vide judgment and decree dated 3rd January 1975. The appellant filed Second Appeal before this Court vide S.A.No. 68 of 1975 and the judgment of the appellate court was set aside. The case was remanded back to the appellate court. At the appellate stage, an application under Section 4 ( c) of the Act was filed making prayer for abatement of the suit in appeal and in pursuance thereof, the suit abated, vide order dated 19th July 1984.

(3.) After the abatement of the suit, the appellant filed an application under Section 10B of the Act making a prayer that the land in dispute be recorded in favour of the appellant giving the fact as stated hereinabove and the same was registered as Case No. 1 of 1984-85. The Consolidation court rejected the application of the appellant and confirmed the entries made in favour of respondents. Being aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation court, an appeal, vide Appeal No. 41 of 1985-86, was filed by the appellant before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Rohtas, Sasaram which was allowed in favour of appellant. The litigation did not stop there, the respondents filed revision before the revisional court i.e. Director, Consolidation vide Revision No. 10 of 1986 which was allowed in favour of respondents. The revisional order was challenged in writ petition vide C.W.J.C.No. 4997 of 1987 and this court remanded back the matter to the revisional court. On remand, the Revisional Court again decided the case in favour of respondents holding that the application under Section 10B of the Act was not maintainable in view of the fact that earlier an application filed u/s 10(2) of the Act was rejected 10 years ago. This revisional order has been affirmed by the Writ Court vide order under appeal.