BAIJNATH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned AC to learned AAG 2 appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 to 4. However, despite valid service of notice, respondent no. 6 to 12 have chosen not to appear and contest the claim raised on behalf of the petitioners. Though respondent no. 5 has already entered appearance through his counsel, but none is appearing on his behalf when the matter has been taken up for final hearing.

(2.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 7.12.1991 (Annexure 4) passed in Consolidation Revision Case No. 3141 of 1988 by respondent Joint Director of Consolidation (Headquarters), Bihar, Patna, whereby the petition under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (in short Act) filed on behalf of the respondent No.5 has been allowed and his claim with respect to the lands under dispute has been upheld, but with certain riders.

(3.) AS noticed above, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Private respondents are not represented by their lawyer. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar, in absence of any counter affidavit having been filed on behalf of the State officials, has not been able to raise any dispute to the assertions made on behalf of the petitioners. In that view of the matter, facts stated in the writ petition have to be accepted.