SUKHLAL SAHNI Vs. GONOUR SAHNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the order dated 15-5-1983 passed by the Joint Director, Consolidation, in case No. 1830/80 as a revisional authority under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' only). By this order, the Joint Director has affirmed the order of the Consolidation Officer by which he has allowed the petition filed by respondent No. 1 for correction of the map in respect of the land in question.

(2.) I may state the relevant facts in brief. The dispute relates to 1 decision of land pertaining to old plot No. 274 of Khata No. 239 out of which R.S. plot No. 275 has been carved out. The State Government issued notification dated 17-11-1972 under Section 3 of the Act in respect of Saraiya Anchal in which village Jaintpur lay. On 23-9-1978 the respondent No. 1 filed an application before the consolidation authority stating therein that according to him some mistake has crept in the map prepared during survey operations under the Bihar Tenancy Act in respect of the land in question and that needs to be corrected. The Consolidation Officer after hearing the contesting parties including the petitioners of this writ application by his order dated 13-9-1979 directed for necessary correction in the map. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Consolidation under Section 10 (6) of the Act and the appellate authority for the reasons incorporated in his order (Annexure-8) set aside the order of the consolidation authority. Against this order a revision application was preferred before the respondent Joint Director, who restored the order of the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 15-5-1983 (Annexure-9).

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners has assailed the revisional order on the ground that 1) the Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the objection of respondent No. 5 with regard to correction of the map after expiry of 45 days as contemplated under Sections 10 (2) and 10-A of the Act, (II) since the map was prepared pursuant to survey under Section 103 of the B. T. Act, therefore, respondent No. 1 was not entitled to re-agitate the issue which is otherwise hit by the principle of res judicata and (HI) the finding with regard to conferment of title in favour of respondent No. 1 pursuant to a sale deed its enforceable because the sale deed has not been executed by the original owner.