PARAS NATH RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.12.1999 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna, in Revision Case No. 151 of 1978, Revision Case No. 15 of 1975, and Revision Case No. 624 of 1977, whereby he has dismissed the three revision applications preferred by the present petitioners, and has held that respondent No. 5 herein Umrawati Devi) is the daughter of Dhyani Rai, and not that of Anant Rai. He has so concluded on the basis of the finding to that effect recorded in the judgment of the Civil Court In Title Suit No. 123 of 1963, and after noticing the notification dated 2.11.1993 (Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit of respondent No, 5) under Section 4-A of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The revisional Court has affirmed the appellate order dated 10.3.1975 (Annexure-4), passed by the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bhojpur, Rohtas, Ara, in Appeal No 155 of 1974 Smt. Umrawati Devi v. Sfieshnath Rai and Ors. and the analogous Appeal No. 114 of 1974 Smt Umrawati Devi v. Dhankalia and Ors.

(2.) THE following lands situate within Mohanpur Anchal of Kaimur District are the subject matter of the present proceedings: Land in Dispute Khata No. Area Villages 142 6.58 Lakhanpatti 95 6.68 Borhaulia 10 1.07 Dhanantpur THE following generalogy has been affirmed by the imugned order which is disputed by the petitioners. THE main dispute between the parties in this protracted litigation is that, according to the petitioners, respondent No. 5 is the daughter of Anant Rai. On the other hand, according to respondent No. 5, she is the daughter of Dhyani Rai:

(3.) AS is manifest from a plain reading of the judgment dated 26.11.1980 (Annexure-9), passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhabhua, in Title Appeal No. 30/68, the appeal had been dismissed on two grounds, namely, for non-prosecution of the appeal by the appellants (the petitioners herein) in terms of Order XLI, Rule 17, and abatement of the appeal in terms of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure and has become final. Earned Counsel for respondent No. 5 has, therefore, rightly relied on the, judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar v. Chiranjibi Lal (supra).