KASHI NATH SINGH Vs. SHIV NARAIN RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER the scheme of Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, upon a notification under Sec. 3 of the Act, an up -to -date record of right in respect of the lands comprised in the notified area is required to be prepared. While preparing such record of right, the map and record of right prepared 20 years preceding the date of publication of the notification under Sec. 3 of the Act is to be reckoned. When the record of right and the map have been brought up -to -date, the valuation of each plot after taking into consideration the opinion of the Village Advisory Committee and other particulars have to be entered in the register of lands. The same is thereafter required to be published in the manner prescribed. Any person aggrieved then may lodge an objection in writing in respect of such register of lands. Such objection is required to be decided by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. A person aggrieved by reason of such decision is authorized to approach the Assistant Director of Consolidation with an appeal against such decision. Thereupon a draft scheme is required to be notified. Anyone entitled to object to the draft scheme may file such objection with the Assistant Consolidation officer, who is required to hand over the same to the Consolidation Officer, and the Consolidation Officer is required to dispose of such objection. The draft scheme encompasses obligation to allot compact area of the plots to every raiyat where he holds the largest part of his holdings. At the time of preparation of the draft scheme, therefore, chak register is prepared. From the documents, upon which reliance has been placed by the parties, which have been brought on record, it appears that only after preparation of the draft scheme i.e. chak register, the subject exchange was recorded.

(2.) THERE is no dispute that the appellants held 7.06 acres of land, as described in paragraph 2A of the Memorandum of Appeal; whereas the private respondents held 7.08 acres of land, as described in paragraph 2B of the Memorandum of Appeal. It appears from the records that after the draft scheme was prepared, two objections were filed; one by the appellants and the other by the private respondents. The appellants filed the objection in respect of the draft scheme pertaining to the lands mentioned in paragraph 2B of the Memorandum of Appeal stating that by virtue of the exchange effected they have now become the raiyats of the land so mentioned in paragraph 2B of the Memorandum of Appeal. The private respondents filed their objection in respect of the draft scheme pertaining to lands mentioned in paragraph 2A of the Memorandum of Appeal and stated that by reason of exchange effected, they have become the raiyats of the lands as mentioned in paragraph 2A of the Memorandum of Appeal. It appears that these objections were not made over to the Consolidation Officer, instead the Assistant Consolidation Officer himself dealt with these two objections and acknowledged private respondents as the raiyats of the lands mentioned in paragraph 2A of the Memorandum of Appeal, and the appellants, as the raiyats of the lands, as mentioned in paragraph 2B of the Memorandum of Appeal. Almost six years thereafter, the appellants approached the revisional authority and contended that recording of lands mentioning private respondents as raiyats of the lands mentioned in paragraph 2A of the Memorandum of Appeal and recording of the appellants as the raiyats of lands mentioned in paragraph 2B thereof was erroneous in as much as no exchange took place there is no document to show that such exchange took place and, in fact, no objection was filed by the appellants in respect of the draft pertaining to the land mentioned in paragraph 2B of the Memorandum of Appeal, and that before deciding the objection filed by the respondents in respect of the draft scheme pertaining to the lands mentioned in paragraph 2A of the Memorandum of Appeal, no notice of hearing was given to the appellants, as is the requirement of law.

(3.) AGAINST the order of the revisional authority, the private respondents approached this Court by filing a writ petition. The Writ Court allowed the writ petition principally on the ground that there was uncalled for delay on the part of the appellants in approaching the revisional authority.