NACHARI ISHWAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The private respondents took recourse to Sec. 10B of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. Initially they succeeded, as a result, the register prepared under Section 9 of the Act stood altered. That required publication under Sec. 10 and that gave liberty to prefer objections and thereupon appeals. However, on the basis of such success the altered register of land was not published. The appellant accordingly went before the appellate authority under Sec. 10 of the Act. The appellate authority after setting aside the order by which the private respondents succeeded remanded the matter back to the authority concerned. As a result, the application made under Sec. 10B of the Act by the respondents was reconsidered. At such reconsideration, the authority concerned found no merit in the application of the respondents and accordingly rejected the same. In such view of the matter, there was no scope of altering the register of land prepared under Section 9 of the Act and accordingly there was no necessity of republication. It appears that the private respondents preferred an appeal against the order rejecting their application. The appellate authority held that it has no power to entertain the appeal. The reason given was that the consolidation proceeding has been closed. The private respondents thereupon approached the revisional authority under Sec. 35 of the Act. The revisional authority remanded the matter to the appellate authority. The order of the revisional authority was assailed in the writ petition. On remand the appellate authority passed a fresh order. The appellant by filing the writ petition challenged the order of the revisional authority as well as of the appellate authority. The Writ Court felt that questions of fact have been decided by two authorities in the same manner and accordingly there is no scope of interference.

(3.) Before us the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that Sec. 10Bof the Act does not confer a right to appeal upon a person who has lost while taking recourse to the said Section. It was submitted that inasmuch as recourse to Sec. 10B of the Act can be taken until notification under Section 26A is published, if a notification under Sec. 26A has not been published, recourse to Sec. 35 may be taken when an application under Sec. 10B is unsuccessful. It was, therefore, submitted that the order of the revisional authority remitting back the matter to the appellate authority as well as the order of the appellate authority are without jurisdiction.