GITA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR; JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, MUZAFFARPUR; DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION, SITAMARHI; CONSOLIDATION OFFICER, BATHANAHA; SHAKUNTALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in the present writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seek quashing of an order dated 25.06.1992 passed in Revision Case No. 2188/89 (annexure- 4) by the Joint Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur. The petitioners have also sought for quashing of the order dated 31.05.1989 passed in Appeal Case No. 41/89 (annexure-3) by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur.

(2.) It is the petitioners' case that after consolidation proceedings started in the concerned village Madhopur under the district of Sitamarhi, the Consolidation Officer had ordered entry of name of the petitioners in respect to the land appertaining to khata No. 128 in terms of an earlier order passed in the year 1961 in their favour under section 103 of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 which was not objected to by the husband of contesting respondent No.5.

(3.) It is the specific case of the petitioners that the land in dispute belonged to one Jaleshwar Jha who had four sons who had partitioned in the year 1932 by metes and bounds and a memorandum of partition was accordingly prepared in the year 1932. After the said partition two of his sons Madhu Kant Jha and Dhanuki Jha lived together. Dhanuki Jha and Bhagat Jha subsequently died issueless and property of Dhanuki Jha, thus, vested in the share of Madhu Kant Jha who came in possession, since he was separate from other two brothers. In the same manner heirs of Markandey Jha came in possession of property of Bhagat Jha. It is their case that Madhu Kant Jha had one son Rajendra Jha and Markandey Jha had two sons, namely, Bhogendra Jha and Chunchun Jha and they were in peaceful possession over the land. According to the petitioners, out of mistake during the revisional survey, khata No. 128 survey plot No. 1327 and 1332 was entered in the name of Rajendra Jha, husband of respondent No.5. The petitioners filed objection under section 103 of Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 giving rise to Objection Case No. 10/61, pursuant to which revisional survey khatiyan was corrected in the presence of Rajendra Jha. The said Rajendra Jha did not file any appeal or revision before any authority against the said correction made pursuant to the objection under section 103 of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 and, accordingly, the correction became final. It has also been averred that plot No. 326, 327 and 318 corresponding to old khata No. 210, which the father of petitioners had taken in settlement (of area 5 katha and 13 dhurs), on 08.01.1938 after the partition in the family in the year 1932 which plots were numbered as plot No. 318 in the revisional survey under khata No. 128 and the land of old khata No. 210 measuring 5 katha 12 dhurs (plot Nos. 326 and 327) was taken in settlement in the name of Hit Lal Jha, own brother-in-law of the father of petitioners as Benami. Subsequently, sons of Hit Lal Jha transferred the land on 08.02.1984, in the name of the petitioners, to avoid any legal complications. In revisional survey khatiyan plot Nos. 326 and 327 were in the name of the petitioners.