VIJAY SHANKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order, dtd. 28/9/2016, passed by learned Chairman, Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna, in B.L.T. Case No. 549 of 2015, has been assailed in the present writ application, whereby an order passed by the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, in Consolidation Revision Case No. 160 of 2001 has been set aside and the order of the appellate authority has been restored with a liberty to the parties to get their titles decided by filing a title suit before a Civil Court.

(2.) Before I refer to the dispute in question, I must notice certain basic facts, which go to the root of the matter. One Raghunath Singh had three sons, namely, Ram Badan Singh, Jagardeo Singh and Raj Kumar Singh. Ram Badan Singh had one son Mygar Singh. Jagardeo Singh had one son Ugrah Singh and Raj Kumar Singh had two sons Amar Singh and Laldhari Singh. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are sons of Mygar Singh. Petitioner No.1, Vijay Shankar Singh, is son of Late Sangram Singh, the eldest son of Mygar Singh. Jagardeo Singh died leaving behind his widow Most. Lakhna Kuer and his son Ugrah Singh. Ugrah Singh is said to have died in 1958. The dispute revolves around the point as to whether Ugrah Singh had died unmarried or had left behind him, his widow Ranbaso Kuer. It is the case of the petitioners that Ranbasi Kuer was not the widow of Ugrah Singh, rather she was set up by others for illegal acquisition of the properties held by Ugrah Singh. Acoording to the petitioners, after death of Ugrah Singh, Most Lakhna Kuer, his mother, inherited his immovable properties in respect of which she executed a gift deed on 30/11/1959 in favour of Amar Singh and Laldhari Singh (sons of Raj Kumar Singh) and Mygar Singh (son of Ram Badan Singh), which was accepted by them and they came in possession over the lands so donated. On the other hand, claiming to be the widow of Ugrah Singh, Ranbaso Kuer executed several sale deeds in favour of the contesting respondents, claiming herself to be the sole heir of Ugrah Singh. A title suit was filed by the petitioners, challenging the validity of the sale deeds, which was dismissed, but the appeal, preferred by these petitioners, being Title Appeal No. 201 of 1971/36 of 1974, was allowed in favour of the petitioners by a judgment and decree dtd. 16/6/1975, though the petitioners were already in possession over the land from before. A Second Appeal was filed before this Court, giving rise to Second Apepal No. 481 of 1975, which stood abated by operation of Sec. 4(c) of the Act by an order dtd. 1/10/1980. After the second appeal stood abated, the contesting respondents, i.e., the vendees of Ranbaso Kuer, approached the Consolidation Officer, Ramgarh, for entering their names in respect of the lands in question, which request was rejected by an order dtd. 4/6/1993. An appeal, preferred against the order of the Consolidation Officer, however, was allowed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation vide his order dtd. 28/11/2011. Revision petition filed against the order of the Assistant Director of Consolidation by the petitioners, giving rise to Revision Case No. 160 of 2001, was allowed on 25/5/2009 in favour of the petitioner. A writ application was thereafter filed giving rise to C.W.J.C. No. 12808 of 2009, which was transferred to the Bihar Land Tribunal by an order of this Court, dtd. 5/5/2015, invoking the proviso to Sec. 15 of the Bihar Land Tribunal Act. The Bihar Land Tribunal has, by the impugned order, dtd. 28/9/2016, reversed the order of the Director, Consolidation, and has affirmed the order of the Assistant Director of Consolidation passed in appellate jurisdiction.

(3.) It is evident from the impugned order that the order passed by the revisional authority, which was under challenge before the Tribunal, was an order ex-parte. It is noteworthy that the revision case before the Director was filed on 29/12/2001 and after notices having been issued, the respondents had appeared on 10/12/2003 through vakalatnama. The Consolidation proceeding remained standstill, till 21/2/2007 and after revival of the consolidation proceeding on 21/2/2007, no notice was sent to the respondents fixing date for hearing of the revision petition. The case was heard ex-parte on 6/3/2009 and adjourned four times thereafter to 18/3/2009, 27/3/2009, 7/4/2009 and 13/4/2009. Neither the petitioners nor the opposite parties appeared to defend their cases. Learned Chairman, Tribunal, has recorded in her order that there is nothing on record to show that after revival of the consolidation proceeding several years after the same was dropped, notices were sent to the parties informing them about dates fixed for hearing. A plea was taken before the Tribunal that one learned Advocate, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pathak had informed the revisional court on 2/2/2007 that four of the opposite parties were dead. There was no clue for the Tribunal to conclude as to for whom Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pathak had appeared and had given information about the death of the opposite parties in the revisional case. This is one of the reasons why learned Chairman of the Tribunal decided to interfere with the order of the Director Consolidation holding that it was the duty of the contesting parties to establish that Ranbaso Kuer was the widow of Ugrah Singh. Learned Chairman has held that since they did not have proper opportunity to defend their case before the revisional court, such finding has no relevance. Dealing with the order passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation, the Tribunal's observations need to be taken note of and are being reproduced hereinbelow :