KULESHWAR SINGH Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As in both the writ applications the order impugned is the same, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order/judgment.

(2.) The present writ applications one directed against the order dated 3.2.84 passed by the Joint Director in the purported exercise of revisional power under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereby and thereunder he has set aside the order passed by the appellate authority namely, the Dy. Director Consolidation, Rohtas dated 15.7.87 (annexure-4 and affirmed the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, contained in annexure-2and3.

(3.) In short the relevant facts are that the disputed land belonged to Mostt. Dhanwant Kuer, widow of late Sheo Prasad Singh, who died less in the year 1975. The petitioners and the private respondents are of late Shiv Pd. Singh, husband of aforesaid Dhanwanti kuer. According to the case of the petitioners. are Bhup Singh was their common ancestor and the concerned respondents, who had three sons namely, Manraj Singh, Ranju Singh and Maharaj Singh Late Sheo Prasad Singh was grand son of Maharaj Singh, while the concerned respondents are branch of Maharaj Singh. The petitioners and same of the respondents are of the branch of Ranju Singh said Mostt. Dhanwanti Kuer died issueless on 26.10.75 leaving behind about 12,91 acres of land situated it village Bhurawal within Karakat Anchal. After the death of Mostt. Dhanwanti Kuer the respondents Padum Singh filled application before the Anchal Adhikari for mutation of his name in place of Mostt. Dhanwnti Kuer. The other respondents on being noticed, filled their objections claiming mutation of their names also besides the name of said Padum Singh. The Anchal Adhikari finally, after calling a report from the Halka Karamchari, passed order on 11.1.76 for amounting the names of the petitioners and the respondents concerned, with respect to four annas share of each set of the claimants. The said order was also upheld by the commissioner in case No. 192/1977 and 185/1977. A true copy of the said order of the Commissioner has been annexed as annexures-1 to the writ petition.