LAWS(PAT)-1998-5-14

SUBEDAR MAHTO Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

Decided On May 13, 1998
SUBEDAR MAHTO Appellant
V/S
JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24-9-87 passed in Revision Case No. 2258/84 with 3413/86 by Joint Director of Consolidation, Patna under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), whereby and whereunder the appellate order and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer were set aside.

(2.) In this case, the dispute relates to right and title in respect of land measuring 15.41 acres appertaining to khata No. 159 situated in village Banahi, P. S. Shahpur Anchal Bihiyan in the district of Bhojpur.

(3.) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the land originally belonged to Maharaja Radhika Raman Pd. Singh of Surajpura which was settled with the family of petitioner by unregistered patta in the year 1940. It was so executed in the name of deceased respondent No. 4 (now substituted by heirs), he being karta of the family and full brother of the petitioner. After revisional survey, the joint family lands, including the disputed land, were jointly recorded in the name of petitioner and the deceased respondent No. 4. No objection was preferred by any person including deceased respondent No. 4 under Section 103A of the B. T. Act. However, with respect to one R. S. plot No. 1631, which was also acquired by same patta, it was wrongly recorded in the name of State of Bihar in the R. S. Khatian for which the petitioner and deceased respondent No. 4 jointly filed a suit under Section 106 of the B. T. Act, which was registered as Case No. 357/70. After initiation of consolidation proceeding in the area, no objection under Section 10(2) of the Act was preferred by any person including the deceased respondent No. 4. Even when publication under Section 12(1) of the Act was made, the deceased respondent No. 4 did not choose to prefer any objection under Section 12(2) of the Act with respect to land in question. After much delay, a petition was preferred by deceased respondent No. 4 under Section 10 (sub-section not known), much beyond the period of limitation. It was rejected by Consolidation Officer, Bihiyan on 21-3-84 being time barred. The deceased respondent No. 4 thereafter preferred an appeal under Section 10(6) of the Act, which was registered as Appeal No. 62/84-85. The appeal was also dismissed on the same ground on 6-6-84. Thereafter a Revision Case No. 2258/84 was filed by the deceased respondent No. 4 under Section 35 of the Act, wherein he claimed the land to be his exclusive property, acquired by him by patta dated 20-4-40, after partition between the petitioner and deceased respondent No. 4. Prayer was made to expunge the name of petitioner showing the land in dispute as his exclusive property.Another application was preferred by deceased respondent No. 4 relating to correction of chak entry with respect to one R. S. Plot No. 1631, which was recorded in the name of State of Bihar. Said application was rejected being time barred against which an Appeal No. 58/83-84 was preferred. The appellate authority vide its order dated 31-1-86 allowed the appeal and ordered to record the name of petitioner and the deceased respondent No. 4. Against the said order, the deceased respondent No. 4 preferred a Misc. Case No. 16/85-86 for recording his name exclusively, which was allowed in his favour on 2-4-86. The petitioner had no knowledge with respect to the aforesaid Misc. Case No. 16/85-86, which was not maintainable, and so the petitioner preferred a separate Revision Case No. 3413/86 against the said order.Both the aforesaid Revision Case Nos. 2258/84 and 3413/86 were heard together and allowed in favour of the deceased respondent No. 4 by common impugned order dated 24-9-87.