MURLIDHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is directed against the order dated 29.09.2008 passed by the Director, Consolidation in Revision Case No. 56 of 2008 under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation by Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by respondent No. 5 Awadhesh Kumar Singh, son of Ram Naresh Rai @ Ram Naresh Singh.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that the petitioners and the respondent No. 5 are all Co -sharers of four equal shares of land appertaining to Cadastral Survey Khata No. 32 of 1974 -75, corresponding to Revisional Survey Khata No. 130 of 1985 and were in peaceful possession over the lands. The lands came to be incorrectly recorded during the Revisional Survey Khatiyan as ANABAAD SARVASADHARAN, although they were GAIR MAZRUA MALIK land. It is further stated that the father of respondent No. 5 Ram Naresh Singh filed an objection before the Consolidation officer, Rajpur against the State of Bihar for correction of the name mentioned in Revisional Survey Khatiyan appertaining to Khata No. 130, plot No. 38, measuring area 0.7 decimals, plot No. 138, measuring area 0.70 decimals, plot No. 181, measuring area 0.26 decimals (actually 0.29 decimals) and plot No. 184 measuring area 0.27 decimals, the total lands were 1.22 acres. The Consolidation Officer after considering the objection filed by Ram Naresh Singh and the Khatiyan held that plot No. 38 measuring 0.70 decimals should be recorded in the name of Ram Naresh Singh, whereas plot No. 181 measuring 0.26 decimals and plot No. 181 also measuring 0.27 decimals should be recorded in the name of the other co -shares (petitioner).

(3.) DURING the pendency of the appeal, the father of respondent No. 5, namely, Ram Naresh Singh died and, therefore, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 that the entire order passed in the appeal is without notice or substitution of respondent No. 5 and has been passed behind the back of respondent No. 5 and as such being aggrieved by the said order he has filed the revision application. It would also be proper to mention that the main contention of respondent No. 5 is that 0.2 decimals of land of Khata No. 85 have illegally been included in the compromise petition. The respondent No. 5 alleges that he ought to have been noticed and heard at the stage of the appeal. It has been alleges that the compromise petition is a forged document and as such not binding upon the respondent No. 5.