MUNAKA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition arises out of a proceeding relating to preparation of register of land under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (in short, the Act). The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Joint Director of Consolidation in Revision Case No. 1705 of 1983 copy whereof has been marked annexure 9 to the writ petition. Earlier the objection filed by the respondents under section 10(2) of the Act was rejected by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and appeal therefrom was dismissed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation. True copies of the said two orders have been marked annexure 7 and 8 to the writ petition. The Joint Director has set aside the appellate order and remanded the case to the Assistant Director of Consolidation for fresh decision.

(2.) IN view of the order that I propose to pass it is not necessary to set out the facts of the case in detail except to mention that while the contesting respondents claim the disputed land by inheritence as being the descendants of the recorded tenant, the petitioner claims on the basis of the settlement. According to him, the land in question viz. 8. kathas 19 dhurs of plot no. 528 was sold to Sunder Paswan by Mahipat Singh the grandson of recorded tenant Durga Rai on 9.8.1911. The land was later auction sold in execution of rent decree against Jagpat Paswan, brother of Sunder Paswan, and purchased by ex -landlord namely Birendra Prasad Shukla. Later, on 1.1.1941 he settled the land with the petitioner. The petitioner has annexed photo copies of the rent receipts granted by the landlord as annexure 2 and 3 series. According to him at the time of vesting of the estates the ex -landlord submitted returns with respect to the land in his favour on the basis of which Jamabandi was created in his name and he paid rent to the State. The petitioner has filed photo copies of the Government rent receipts as annexure 4 series.

(3.) IT is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the revisional authority did not consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the documentary evidence on record at all and merely on the ground that the Assistant Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to decide the case on contest and the case has been decided without local inspection for which the Assistant Director had passed an order earlier, he set aside the orders of the authorities below and remanded the case for fresh decision.