HAFIZAN BIBI AND ORS. Vs. MOUDDIN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very short question is involved in the present writ application which has already been decided by this Court in three earlier decision, (Ramanand Singh v. Bidayapati Devi,1985 PLJR 15), (Bettiah Estate v. Pushpa Devi,1986 PLJR 222) and (Smt. Jai Kala Devi v. Nalini Ranjan Prasad Singh, 1989 PLJR 536). Admittedly, there is a private mosque over Khati homestead land which is being dragged in, for the purpose of consolidation scheme under the provisions of Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956.

(2.) From the impugned orders, I find that there is no dispute over the fact that the land in dispute is being used as mosque and there are shops around such mosque. Even the Revenue Authorities have not disputed this fact. In the background of this admitted fact, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30-11-1987 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Nasriganj (Rohtas), in Consolidation Case No. 135/67 of 1986-87. The petitioner had preferred appeal against the order of Consolidation Officer being Appeal Case No. 1092 of 1987-88 before the Assistant Director of Consolidation which was allowed in his favour. The Revisional Authority i.e. Director, Consolidation in Revision Case No. 3605/89, setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority has affirmed the order of the Consolidation Officer by an order dated 7-11-1992 which is under challenge in the present case.

(3.) Mr. A. B. Ojha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has referred to the decision of this Court in case of (Bettiah Estate v. Pushpa Devi) and had relied upon paragraph No. 16 of the said decision to contend that the land in queation having no nexus to agriculture, the consolidation proceeding could not be maintained with respect to the said land. He has also placed reliance upon the decision in case of Ramanand Singh v. Bidayapati Devi and has submitted that in the absence of any finding that the said land is/was being used for agriculture purposes, no proceeding under the Consolidation Act could be maintained. He has also relied on another decision of this Court in case of Smt. Jai Kala Devi v. Nalini Ranjan Prasad Singh in respect of said submission.