KALWATI DEVI Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SAKALDEEP Bhagat, Chandradeep Bhagat, and Jagdeep Bhagat were recorded as raiyats in the record of rights relating to the subject and comprising of 57 decimals. There is no dispute that in relation to the land in question a notification under sec. 3 of Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published. There is also no dispute that during the relevant time no notification under sec. 26A of the Act closing consolidation proceeding had been published. There is no dispute that Sakaldeep Bhagat died in 1986. One Sumitra Devi claiming to be the wife of Sakaldeep Bhagat took recourse to section 6 of the Act and sought for permission to sell 19 decimal of such land to the appellant. The Consolidation Officer granted such permission. Private respondents then preferred an appeal and thereby challenged permission granted to Sumitra Devi to sell 19 out of the said 57 decimal of land. The private respondents were successful in the appeal and in consequence thereof the permission granted in favour of Sumitra Devi was revoked. Sumitra Devi thereupon filed ah application under sec. 35 of the Act seeking revision of the order of the appellate authority. The revision was allowed. Aggrieved thereby the private respondents filed the writ petition and thereby contended that having regard to the mandate contained in sub -section (4) of section 6 of the Act the revisional authority had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority which has become final. The writ court accepted the contention of the private respondents and, accordingly, allowed the appeal and set aside the revisional order. Being aggrieved thereby the purchaser to whom Sumitra Devi wanted to sell 19 out of 57 decimal of the subject land has preferred the appeal.

(2.) SUB -section (4) of section 6 of the Act declares finality pertaining to the permission the moment an appellate order is passed. Similarly sub -section (6) of sec. 10 of the Act brings about finality pertaining to a published register of land and -statement of principles the moment the appeal pertaining to objection thereon is decided by the appellate authority.

(3.) ULTIMATELY , the matter went before a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Seikh Haider Zan vs. Md. Yusuf Ansari; 12002 RL.J.R. 338. The Full Bench noticed a judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Pritam Singh vs. Assistant Director of Consolidation; (1996)2 Supreme Court Cases 270. The Hon ble Supreme Court in that case was concerned with sec. 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 which is almost identical to the provisions contained in sec. 35 of the Bihar Act. That is also the finding of the Full Bench. The Full Bench, after considering the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court, held that the revisional authority exercising jurisdiction under sec. 35 of the Act has unfeterred power and jurisdiction to pass any suitable order for doing complete justice between the parties which leaves little room for doubt that the power under sec. 35 of the Act is an independent power unfeterred or uncircumscribed by any other provision of the Act. In those circumstances, despite the appellate order concluding the matters dealt with under sec. 10 of the Act finally, it is open to the revisional authority exercising power under sec. 35 of the Act to pass suitable order for doing complete justice between the parties.