GUDHANI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this case is with respect to 8 decimals of land appertaining to plot No. 127 situate in village Asoi Raghu within the Goraul Police Station in the district of Vaishali.

(2.) By the orders as contained in Annexures 4, 5, and 6, this land has been directed to be recorded in the name of Respondent No. 4, The petitioner therefore, has come up to this Court praying to quash the aforesaid orders as contained in Annexures 4, 5 and 6.

(3.) The land in question, undisputedly, was the gairmazarua land of the then landlord. According to the petitioner he took a settlement by payment of rent and grant of receipt accompanied by delivery of possession some time in the year 1930. It is said that since then he is in possession of the same and his name was also recorded in the revisional survey. It is said that when the draft publication was made by the Consolidation authorities under Sec. 10(1) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') then his name appeared in the land Register prepared under Sec. 9 (1) and was published under Sec. 10(1) of the Act. An objection to this publication was made by Respondent No. 4. The Consolidation Officer allowed |the 3 objection by his order dated 17 -5 -1976 as contained in ' Annexure -4 wherein, inter alia it is said that neither the petitioner nor Respondent No. 4 could prove his title but since Respondent No. 4 was not in possession of the land in question therefore, his objection was allowed. Against this order, an appeal was preferred before the Deputy Director of Consolidation (Respondent No. 2) who dismissed the appeal on 24 -7 -1978 by the order as contained in Annexure 5. The matter was then referred to the Director of Consolidation by way of revision and the Joint Director of Consolidation upheld the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 26th May. 1980 (Annexure -6). Thus the prayer of the petitioner, as said earlier, is to quash these orders,