YOGENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the Present Writ application has assailed by validity of the judgment/order dated 27-11-84/5-12-84 contained in annexure 5, passed by the Director, Consolidation (respondent no. 2), Patna in Consolidation Revision No. 294/83 affirming the judgment/order dated 2-2-82 contained in annexure 4 passed in Consolidation Appeal No. 85 of 81-81 and the judgment and order dated 4-12-78 passed by the Asstt. Consolidation Officer (respondent no. 5) in Consolidation objection case no. 110/238 of 73, which was approved by the Consolidation officer (respondent no. 4) on 9-12-78 contained in annexure 2.

(2.) The dispute in the present writ application relates to the land of R. S. khata nos. 163, 167, 168, 169 and 342 situated in village Bishunpur Basant alias Subhai, which under the impugned order were ordered to be recorded only in the name of respondent no. 6 excluding the claim of the petitioner, although in the revisional survey record names of both the petitioner and respondent no. 6 were recorded showing half share in all the aforesaid khatas and the other half share recorded in the names of respondent nos. 7 to 9, about which there is no dispute. The petitioner and respondent no. 6 are own brothers being members of the Hindu joint family till the separation in the year 1978.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that respondent no. 6 being elder and Karta of the family was managing the lands in question. In 1944 the petitioner went to Calcutta, where his uncle Ramautar Singh lived. Respondent no. 6 purchased the land in dispute out of the joint family fund on 12-4-1945 from Mostt. Jaso Kuer through registered sale-deed. It is also alleged that at the time of said purchase the petitioner and respondent no. 6 had no other source of income than the income derived from the cultivation of the joint family property and money was also invested by the petitioner out of the transport business at Calcutta. It is further stated that some sale deeds detained from 1950 to 1976 will show that several plots were purchased on behalf of the joint family in the names of both the petitioner and respondent no. 6. In revisional survey the names of both the petitioner and respondent no. 6 were recorded in respect of all properties showing half share of each. Respondent no. 6 never filed any objection to the entries. However, two objections were filed by respondent no. 6, first in respect of wrong entry of the name of Deo Kishun Singh only with regard to plot No. 1787 of Kh. no. 163 and with respect to plot nos. 1253, 1065, 1481, 1404 and 1425 appertaining to khata no. 167 which was also recorded in the name of Deo Kishun Singli with respect to the aforementioned land purchased from Jaso Kuer. A prayer was also made for recording the name of both petitioner and respondent no. 6.