LAL BADAN KUER Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have questioned the order dated 24.6.1992 passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation, Gaya whereby the Consolidation Revision Case No.125 of 1990 filed by the private respondents has been allowed and while setting aside the orders of the Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Director of Consolidation a direction has been issued to enter the names of the two parties over the plots in question in equal half.

(2.) A family genealogy has been placed at paragraph 7 of the writ petition and a perusal whereof manifests that the contesting parties are descendants from a common ancestor Pitamber Singh who was survived by two sons, namely, Mukhlal Singh and Sheogulam Singh. While the petitioners are descendants from Mukhlal Singh, the respondents are coming from the branch of Sheogulam Singh. It is further the case of the petitioners that both the brothers were married in the same family of Kamaljeet Singh.

(3.) Whereas the parties herein inherited the ancestral properties coming from their father, they also got certain properties from the maternal side situated at Village - Belaur within the district of Patna. According to the petitioners, an oral partition took place between the parties as back as in the 1920 when it was mutually agreed that the properties coming from the paternal side would fall in the branch of Mukhlal Singh and the properties which devolved from the maternal side would fall in the share of the branch of Sheogulam Singh. It is further the case of the petitioners that the matter rested at that stage and after more than 30 years that the private respondents sought to disturb their possession by raising claim for partition over the property at Usari Chakia which devolved from the paternal side. While their claim was rejected by the Consolidation Officer as well as the Assistant Director of Consolidation, it was upheld by the Joint Director of Consolidation by the impugned order and hence this writ petition. Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, learned counsel has appeared for the petitioners while Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha has appeared for the private respondents. The State is not represented.