MITHELESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of the Director, Consolidation passed in Rev. Case No. 2744/86, contained in Annexure-3 whereby the order of the Deputy Director was set aside.

(2.) The dispute in this case, as would appear from the averments made in the writ petition, is with respect to C.S. Khata No. 61 C.S. Plot No. 105 area 1.15 acres and C.S. Plot No. 107 area 1.01 acres of village Dumra, Thana No. 208 Tauzi No. 5202 P.S. Karahgar, District Rohtas, which was originally recorded as fact/cast malik in the name of Dukhi Rao. The said tauzi was purchased by one Debi Prasad on 13-9-1954 in auction sale on account of non-payment of arrears of rent. Later, Debi Prasad sold this land in favour of Shri Sheo Kewal Lal through a registered sale-deed dated 16-9-1954 and put the vendee in possession. Subsequently, the said land was settled by Shri Kewal Lal in favour of Deomuni Singh, father of the petitioners by virtue of the registered patta dated 6-11-1954 and since then, they have been coming in possession. At the time of vesting, the ex-landlord submitted return in favour of Deomuni Singh and Since then they have been coming in possession. At the time of vesting, the ex-landlord submitted return in favour of Deomuni Singh and ultimately, Jamabandi was prepared in his name. The respondent-Director allowed the claim of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on the ground that at the time of auction, they were found in possession and accordingly, directed for necessary correction in the khatiyan, etc. He held that neither Deomuni Singh nor the auction-purchaser or the writ petitioners ever came in possession of the land. Therefore, neither the sale-deed nor the settlement we ever acted upon. Taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect as well as the case of the contesting respondent Nos. 5 and 6, revision petition was allowed.

(3.) It appears from the statement made in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the writ petition that previously title suit and revenue cases were also decided in favour of the petitioners and respondent No. 5 had lost. To appreciate the details of the cases, it would be proper to quote paragraphs 9 and 10 of the writ petition as under: