SABIL AHAMED Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Arun Kumar Arun for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents. The three petitioners herein are the sons of Late Md. Rafique Ahmad who claimed to have purchased 15 decimals of (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the subject land') land(s) appertaining to new khata no.443 under khesra no.2425 situate in Mauza Chhatapur in the district of Saharsa. They are aggrieved by the order dated 25.01.1988 passed by the Respondent Joint Director, Consolidation, Purnea in Revision Case No. 2075/85 (Annexure-5) whereby the order dated 14.08.1985, passed by the Respondent Assistant Director, Consolidation in Appeal Case No. 509/84 (Annexure-3) was affirmed and the revision application preferred by the petitioners was dismissed.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the subject land was recorded in the name of the ancestor(s) of Seikh Taiyab. He defaulted in making payment of rent and, accordingly, the same reverted to and came in possession of the ex landlord who subsequently settled the same with one Jagat Sah and others. At the time of vesting of intermediary rights the return was filed in their favour. The settlee, namely, Jagat Sah sold the subject land in favour of one Abdul Majid. After his death, the subject land was inherited by his wife, namely, Bibi Hafizan and her son Md. Shamim. Both of them sold the same in favour of Nand Lal Yadav and Murlidhar Parihasth in the year 1973 by a registered sale deed. The purchasers, namely, Nand Lal Yadav and Murlidhar Parihasth sold the subject land in 1975 by a registered sale deed in favour of Md. Taiyab and his brother Seikh Kamruddin. Petitioners claimed to have purchased the subject land in the year 1978 from Md. Taiyab in whose share the subject land fell in partition between the two brothers. According to the petitioners, the said sale deed was executed after taking due permission from the Consolidation Authority as required under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings (Prevention of Fragmentation) Act ( for short 'the Act'). The father of the petitioners constructed a dwelling structure thereon and since then he was living thereon and after his death petitioners are residing thereon. Mutation in respect of subject land was also made in favour of Md. Rafiue (father of the petitioners) and Jamabandi was created. The petitioners thus continued in possession thereof. During the consolidating proceeding an objection was filed by the father of the petitioners impleading his vendor Md. Taiyab son of Noor Mohammad as opposite party giving rise to Case No. 407/78. An inspection of subject land was made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer wherefrom it revealed that the applicant (father of the petitioners) was residing on the plot after constructing a dwelling structure thereon. Considering the document filed in support of the claim as also the report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer (Annexure-2) the Consolidation Officer allowed the objection filed by the father of the petitioners by order dated 5.11.1984(Annexure-1). The private respondent(s) filed an appeal before the Assistant Director of Consolidation vide Appeal No. 509/84. The appellate court/authority again made local inspection of the subject land wherefrom it revealed that petitioners were residing thereon after constructing their dwelling house. The appellate authority, however, allowed the said appeal on the ground that in a previous proceeding being Appeal Case No. 93/80 he had passed an order in favour of the appellant(s) although the same was not acted upon as the records of right were not corrected as per the said order. Aggrieved thereby, petitioners filed revision before the Respondent Joint Director, Consolidation which was considered and disposed of by order dated 25.01.1988 (Annexure-