KRISHNA SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a proceeding initiated under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, the appellant lost ultimately before the revisional authority. The order of the revisional authority was under challenge in the writ petition, which has been rejected by the judgment and order under appeal.

(2.) The reason for rejection of the writ petition was the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Gorakh Nath Dubey V/s. Hari Narain Singh, AIR 1973 SC 2451, where it was held that transfer of property made in excess of power or competence of the transferor, the transfer deed becomes void and in such cases the consolidation authorities have jurisdiction to go into the question of validity or otherwise of the transfer. In the present appeal, however, the appellant is not challenging the order under appeal on the ground that the reason furnished by the learned Judge while dismissing the writ petition was erroneous. At least, no such submission has been advanced before us. Instead, it was urged that the order impugned in the writ petition passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was a non est order, inasmuch as power of revision, as granted by Section 35 of the Act, vests only in the Director of Consolidation. In this connection, learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal cited the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Ram Sundar Chaudhary V/s. Ram Nath Chaudhary, 2003 2 PLJR 184, wherein it had been held that the power of revision, as granted by Section 35. of the Act, can only be used by the Director of Consolidation and not by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has also cited similar two judgments rendered by two learned single Judges of this Court in the case of Ramotar Yadav V/s. Ajaz Haider, 2001 1 PLJR 266 and in Jhuri Bind V/s. State of Bihar, 2007. 3 PLJR 648.