GOPAL SARAN MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 13.3.2001 passed by the Joint Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur (respondent No. 2) in Consolidation Revision No. 1478 of 1998 and also the order dated 12.12.1988 passed in appeal No. 140 of 1987 by the Dy. Director, Consolidation, Sitamarhi, (respondent No. 3).

(2.) By these two orders the order dated 23.1.1986 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Riga, in Consolidation Case No. 7 of 1984 passed in favour of the petitioner has been set aside. The dispute relates to right, title and interest of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 over 27 decimals land of R.S. Plot No. 110 and 8 decimals land of R.S. Plot No. 109 of Revisional Survey khata No. 122 of village Ashagi in the district of Sitamarhi.

(3.) Admitted case of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 is that originally C.S. Plot No. 126 measuring 2.62 acres, C.S. Plot No. 140 measuring 1.90 acres and C.S. Plot No. 142 measuring 1.18 acres belonged to Babu Raj Kumar Janak Nandan Singh who was the maternal grand-father of the petitioner and respondent No. 4. On 2.4.1946 he settled plot No. 126 in favour of his daughter, Saraswati Devi, mother of respondent No. 4, plot No. 142 in favour of Ram Laxmi Devi, his wife and grant-mother of petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 as well as plot No. 140 in favour of Maheshwari Devi, his another daughter and mother of the petitioner. These settlements were made through registered patta. After vesting of zamindari in the State of Bihar, the settlees' names were recorded in Register-II. Their names were mutated and they are paying rent to the State. Ram Laxmi Devi, maternal grant mother of petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 died leaving behind three daughters, namely, Saraswati Devi, Bhuneshwari Devi and Maheshwari Devi, who partitioned the estate left by Ram Laxmi Devi. In that partition entire 1.18 acres of plot No. 142 was allotted in the share of Maheshwari Devi, mother of the petitioner. Father of respondent No. 4, namely, Sindha Narain Singh was holding power of attorney on behalf of three sisters as he was the husband of the eldest sister Saraswati Devi (mother of respondent No. 4). Taking undue benefit of the power of attorney he got recorded land in the name of Maheshwari Devi but she had no knowledge about this act of Sidha Narain Singh. Later on, 22.3.1972 the mother of the petitioner, namely, Maheshwari Devi executed a gift deed in favour of his son with regard to the disputed land i.e. 27 decimals of R.S. Plot No. 110 and 8 decimals of R.S. Plot No. 109. On the basis of this gift deed petitioner's name was mutated with respect to the gifted land. No objection was raised by any one and he paid rent and receiving rent receipts. When the consolidation proceeding was started in the area, the petitioner filed an application before the Consolidation Officer, Riga, for recording his name with respect to other lands. This application was registered as Consolidation Case No. 7 of 1984. Notices were issued to respondent No. 4. During consolidation proceeding the petitioner, respondent No. 4 and other family members entered into arbitration agreement to resolve their family dispute and appointed three panches for this purpose. The panches resolved the dispute between the parties and an agreement for partition was executed and signed by the parties on 15.7.1985. In that agreement this disputed land was allotted in the share of the petitioner. The panches also filed an application in Consolidation Case No. 7 of 1984 that the disputed land had been allotted to the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer on consideration of the documents produced before him by order dated 23.1.1986 allowed the claim of the petitioner and held that 27 decimals land from plot No. 110 and 4 decimals land from plot No. 109 be given to the petitioner. After much delay respondent No. 4 filed appeal No. 140 of 1987 before the Dy. Director, Consolidation, against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. In appeal for the first time respondent No. 4 came out with a case that Ram Laxmi Kuer (Grand-mother) soon after the settlement in the year 1946 had given 25 decimals of plot No. 142 from North to his mother Saraswati Devi for making her and straight and the mother of the petitioner Smt. Maheshwari Devi had also given 3 decimals from her settled plot No. 140 from eastern northern corner to the mother of respondent No. 4 for making her land straight though no document or evidence was produced by respondent No. 4 in support of ^the aforesaid transactions. Even then the Dy. Director, Consolidation, by his order dated 12.12.1988 allowed the appeal mainly on the ground that in Consolidation Case No. 12 of 1984 the order has been passed on 14.8.1984 in favour of respondent No. 4 with regard to the disputed land and, as such, the Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to pass any order on 23.1.1986 in case No. 7 of 1984 as no appeal or revision was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 4.8.1984 passed in Consolidation Case No. 12 of 1984. The petitioner filed Revision No. 1478 of 1989 against the order passed by the appellate authority before the Joint Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur, but it was rejected by a cryptic order dated 13.3.2001 affirming the order passed by the appellate authority. The finding recorded by the appellate authority as well as revisional authority is that the order dated 23.1.1986 passed in case No. 7 of 1984 was barred by res judicata because earlier to that an order had already been passed on 14.8.1984 in case No. 12 of 1984 in favour of respondent No. 4. The dispute was in between the same party and issues involved were also same. As such, the subsequent order i.e. the order dated 23.1.1986 passed in case No. 7 of 1984 was barred by res judicata.