SHEOJOTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 3 -9 -1976 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Aurai in Annexure -1, the order dated 15 -7 -1978 passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur in Annexure -2 and the order dated 24 -12 -1979 passed by the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, in Annexure -3 rejecting their objection filed under section 10(2) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In order to appreciate the questions involved in this case it will be necessary to state some relevant facts. The petitioners claim that they and respondent No. 6 Krishna Kumar Sahi are members of a joint Mitakshra family. According to them their common ancestor Surendra Sahi had two sons, namely, Ram Sreshtha Sahi, who died in the year 1969 and Daroga Sahi who died in the year 1947. Surendra Sahi had also died in the year 1954. Ram Surendra Sahi had also died in the year 1954. Ram Sreshtha Sahi had a son named Ramasish Sahi, whose widow is petitioner No. 1 and his son is petitioner No. 2, Daroga Sahi had only one son Krishna Kumar Sahi who is respondent No. 6. The petitioners claim that they and respondent No. 6 own some lands in village Rampur, police station Aurai in the district of Muzaffarpur besides other lands in different villages. According to them the lands were jointly recorded in the cadastral survey. They alleged that during revisional survey respondent No. 6 in collusion with the survey authorities got the survey records of some of the joint family lands incorrectly prepared. Lands of R.S. khata No. 21 were wrongly recorded in the name of respondent No. 6. In some other khatas lands of the family remained jointly recorded in the names of Ram Sreshtha Sahi and Krishna Kumar Sahi. After the death of Ram Sreshtha Sahi on enquiry the petitioners came to know that respondent No. 6 had got his name exclusively entered in respect of more than half of the lands of the joint family. They filed a partition suit claiming half share in the joint family properties and also for the correction of the revisional survey entries. But in the meanwhile a notification under section 3 of the Act was published and the suit abated under the provisions of section 4(c) of the Act. The petitioners thereupon filed an objection under section 10(2) of the Act before the Consolidation Officer for correcting the wrong entries in the chak register in respect of original khata Nos. 21, 22, 264 and 265 of village Rampur in the joint names of the petitioners and respondent No. 6 of the extent of half each. It is claimed that certain documents were filed to show that the family was joint and still the family owns the entire lands jointly and, therefore, petitioners are entitled to get their names recorded in the chak register over the lands of the family to the extent of half. The Consolidation Officer rejected their objection by an order passed on 3 -9 -1976 (Annexure -1). The petitioners thereupon preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Consolidation and Appeal No. 288 of 1976 was also dismissed on 15 -7 -1978 (Annexure -2). The petitioners then filed a revision application which too was dismissed by the Director, Consolidation on 24 -12 -1979 (Annexure -3).

(2.) THE case of respondent No. 6, inter alia, was that the family was not joint, and that a partition had taken place in the year 1930 and the properties in dispute were self acquired properties of Daroga Sahi, father of respondent No. 6.

(3.) THE Consolidation Officer, respondent No. 2 passed the following order on 3 -9 -1976 which is Annexure -1.