ASHOKSINGHYADAVANDSNDARSBAOSINGHYADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -These analogous writ petitions have been heard together as they involve similar questions for our determination. Hence it is convenient to dispose them of by this common judgment. CWJC No. 2351 of 1993 would, however, be the leading case. The point is as to whether an order dated 21.4.1989 (Annexure 4) would operate as res judicata.

(2.) Shorn of details, the facts of the case are that the plot in dispute was recorded in the name of one Indrasan Koeri. father of respondent No. 6 and after his death Vijay Shanker Koeri (respondent No. 6) was recorded. A sale deed dated 4.12.1985 was obtained by Kameshwar Pandey (respondent No, 5) from Indrasan Koeri (father of respondent No. 6) ; whereas respondent No. 6 by another sale deed dated 25.1.1991 transferred some land in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No 5 filed an application for mutation of his name under Section 10-B for the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 ("the Act" for short) by impleading Vijay Shanker Koeri (respondent No. 6) as the only party to the proceeding. The petitioners who were the subsequent vendees from respondent No. 6, were not however impleaded The application was decided in favour of respondent No. 5 by order dated 21.4.1989 (Annexure 4). It is this order which has been held by the Joint Director of Consolidation (respondent No. 2) in the exercise of revisional power under Section 35 of the Act to operate as res judicata against the interest of the petitioners.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners urged that as the order dated 21.4.1989 (Annexure 4) was passed without impleading the petitioners (subsequent vendees) as party even though this order did affect the interest of the petitioners, at the same time the matter was not decided on merits, hence it would not operate as resjudicata.