Lakshman Mahto v. State Of Bihar — 1988 DIGILAW 205 (PAT)

Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. This writ petition involves an interesting question of law with regard to the provisions of Sections 10 (2), 10-A and 12 (2) of the Bihar consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. 3. R. S. Plot No.1629 and R. S. Plot No.1639 have been carved out of o. S. Plot No.1221 and was originally recorded in the name of Karu Mahto grandfather of the petitioner. According to the petitioner Karu Mahto died leaving behind his only son Sanichar Mahto. After the death of Karu Mahto, the said Sanichar Mahto had been in actual and cultivatory possession of the land in question as also the said Sanichar Mahto had been paying rent in respect of the land in question even after the coming into force of the Act. According to the petitioner the said lands were devided into two parts for convenience of cultivation. 4. A consolidation proceeding was started in the area. A portion of the land in question was recorded in the name of the State of Bihar and a portion thereof in the name of respondent Nos.6 and 7. Petitioners father filed two objections under Sec.103-A of the Bihar Tenancy Act before the survey authority. The said objections were however, rejected the extract whereof is contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Thereafter, a register of land in terms of Sec.9 of the said Act was prepared in the name of respondent No.6 in respect of the disputed land and the same was published on 25-11-1972. 5. In terms of the provisions of the said Act, objections were invited in respect of the entries made in the register of the lauds within thirty days from the date of publication. The pstitioner has asserted that prior to publication of the register of lands, the petitioner has been suffering from mental disease and was under medical treatment from 12-10-1972 to 4-10-1973. In view of the fact that the register of the lands under Sec.9 was published on 24-11-1972, the objection in relation thereto was to be filed by 24-12-1972. 6. The pstitioner has asserted that prior to publication of the register of lands, the petitioner has been suffering from mental disease and was under medical treatment from 12-10-1972 to 4-10-1973. In view of the fact that the register of the lands under Sec.9 was published on 24-11-1972, the objection in relation thereto was to be filed by 24-12-1972. 6. The petitioner has further asserted that subsequently in the year 1979 a draft scheme was published in terms of the provisions of Sec.11 of the Act and the petitioner filed an objection thereto under Sec.12 (2) thereof. In the said objection the petitioner, inter alia, prayed for that the entries made in the consolidation records with regard to the disputed land be corrected. By an order dated 24-12-1979 the respondent No.4 dismissed the said objection and as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The petitioner thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director of Consolidation against the aforementioned order dated 24-12-1979, which was registered as Consolidation Appeal no.15 of 1980. By an order dated 23-2-1980, the respondent No.3 summarily dismissed the said appeal. The said order dated 23-2-1980 is contained in annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision application before the Director of Consolidation, which was registered as case No.344 of 1980, which was also eventually dismissed by an order dated 30-3-1982 which is contained in Annexure 4 to the writ petition. 7. According to the learned counsel, the concerned respondents refused to entertain the objections filed on behalf of the petitioner simply on the ground that as the petitioner did not file any objection under Sec.10 (2) of the Act, an objection at a subsequent stage under Sec.12 (2) thereof was not maintainable. 8. Mr. Mahesh Prasad No.2, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that prior to coming into force of Act 27 of 1975 whereby and whereunder Sec.10-A in the said Act was inserted a person could avail opportunities to file objections with regard to the wrong entry made in the register of lands. 8. Mr. Mahesh Prasad No.2, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that prior to coming into force of Act 27 of 1975 whereby and whereunder Sec.10-A in the said Act was inserted a person could avail opportunities to file objections with regard to the wrong entry made in the register of lands. Learned counsel has further submitted that Sec.10-A of the Act has not been given a retrospective effect and in that view of the matter the provision thereof could not have been applied in the facts and circumstances of the case, as admittedly the register of land was published on 25-11-1972 i. e. , before coming into force of Act 27 of 1975. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that even assuming that Sec.10-A of the Act was prospective in its operation but having regard to the scheme and object of the act any person who did not file an objection within the prescribed period under sub-section (2) of Sec.10 of the Act, was debarred from filing the same at a later stage as the nature of the objections to be filed under Sec.10 (2) and one under Sec.12 (2) of the Act are different. Learned counsel has further submitted that whereas in terms of Sec.10 (2)of the Act any person may file an objection in respect of any entry made in the register, in terms of sub-section (2) of Sec.12 of the Act the same was confined only with regard to the scheme. Learned counsel has also submitted that in that view of the matter the impugned orders have legally been passed. 10. Before dwelling upon the rival contentions of the parties, the following provisions of the said Act may be taken note of : Sec.3 of the Act provides for a right to the State Government to declare its intention to make scheme for consolidation of holdings wherefor a notification is required to be published in the official Gazelle declaring its intention to do so. Sec.4 deals with the effect of publication of such notification. Sec.5 provides for a bar to transfer any land without sanction after the date of publication of the register of lands. Sec.7 of the Act provides for constitution of a village Advisory Committee. Sec.4 deals with the effect of publication of such notification. Sec.5 provides for a bar to transfer any land without sanction after the date of publication of the register of lands. Sec.7 of the Act provides for constitution of a village Advisory Committee. Sec.8 of the Act provides for preparation of up-to-date record-of-rights which reads as follows : " (1) save as provided in sub-section (2) as soon as may be after the publication of a notification under Sec.3 an up-to-date record-of-rights, in respect of all lands comprised in the notified area, together with a map shall be prepared in accordance with the provisions of chapter X of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (Act V11i of 1885), or as the case may be, Chapter XII of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (Ben. Act VI of 1908) or the Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872 (Regulation III of 1872) : provided that State Government may, by rules made in this behalf, make such modifications in the provisions of the said Acts and Regulation as may be necessary for the expeditious preparation of the record-of-rights. (2) Where in respect of lands comprised in the notified area map and record-of-rights have been prepared and preliminarily or finally published under the provisions of Chapter X of the Bihar Tenancy act, 1885 (Act VIII of 1885), or as the case may be Chapter XIII of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (Ben. Act VI of 1908) or santhai Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872 (Reg. III of 1872), within twenty years preceding the date of publication of the notification. under Sec.3, such map and record-of-rights shall be deemed to be up-to-date map and record-of-rights prepared under subsection (1 ). " Sec.9 of the Act provides for preparation of register of lands. Act VI of 1908) or santhai Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872 (Reg. III of 1872), within twenty years preceding the date of publication of the notification. under Sec.3, such map and record-of-rights shall be deemed to be up-to-date map and record-of-rights prepared under subsection (1 ). " Sec.9 of the Act provides for preparation of register of lands. Section 9 of the Act before the same was amended in the year 1975 read as follows : "preparation of register of lands.- When the record-of-rights has been or is deemed to have been prepared under Sec.8, there shall be prepared in the prescribed form (i) a register of lands belonging to raiyats which shall contain the following particulars, namely (a) the name of the raiyat ; (b) the areas and serial numbers of tie plots of land held by the raiyats ; (c) classification of each plot according to its produce ; (d) The areas and serial numbers of the plots of land held by under raiyats, if any having a right of occupancy therein ; (e) The areas and serial numbers of the plots of land held by under raiyats, if any having no right of occupancy therein ; (f) the market value of each plot ; (g) the market value of buildings, wells and trees standing on any plot; (h) the total market value of lands (including the value of buildings, wells and trees standing thereon), held by each raiyat; and (i) any other particulars that may be prescribed ; and (ii) a register of lands reserved for public purpose which shall contain the following particulars, namely : (a) the public purpose for which any such land has been reserved or which it serves ; (b) the areas and boundary of such land ; and (c) any other particulars that may be prescribed. " Sec.10 of the Act provides for publication of registers and objection thereto. The said provision as stood before the Amendment of 1975 reads as follows : "publication of registers and objections thereto.- (1) The registers prepared under Section 9 shall be published in the manner laid down in sub-section (2) of Sec.3 and a notice with copies of the relevant entries in such registers shall be served upon the raiyat or under raiyat of the land to which the entries relate. (2) Any person interested in the land included in any entry in the registers may, within thirty days of the date of service of the notice upon such person under sub-section (1), make any objection in writing to the Consolidation Officer. (3) As soon as may be after the expiry of the period for making objection under sub-section (2), the Consolidation Officer shall visit the village concerned on a date of which previous notice has been given in the prescribed manner and decide the objection after hearing the persons interested and after such enquiry as may be necessary. (4) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Consolidation officer under sub-section (3) may, within thirty days of such order, prefer an appeal to the Director of Consolidation who shall hear the appeal in the prescribe manner after giving reasonable opportunities to the parties interested of being heard and pass such orders as he may think fit. " Sec.11 of the Act provides for preparation of draft scheme after the objection, if any, made under sub-section (2) of Sec.10 has been disposed of. Sec.11 of the Act before 1975 amendment reads as follows : "preparation of draft scheme.- (1) As soon as may be after the objections, if any, made under sub-section (2) of Sec.10 have been disposed of, the Consolidation Officer shall visit the village concerned on a date of which previous notice shall be given in the prescribed manner and shall, after consulting the Village Advisory Committee and such raiyats as may be available, prepare a draft scheme for the consolidation of holdings in the notified area : provided that, if the Consolidation Officer does not accept the advice of the Village Advisory Committee or of the raiyats on any matter, he shall, before preparing the draft scheme, refer such matter for decision to the Director of Consolidation whose orders thereon shall be final. (2) Subject to rules made in this behalf by the State Government, the consolidation Officer shall, for the purpose of the scheme consolidate as far as practicable, all the lands held by an under raiyat having a right of occupancy in such lands : provided that the land allotted under the scheme to as under raiyat in lieu of any land held by him before the confirmation of the scheme shall form part of the new holding allotted under the scheme to the raiyat under whom the under raiyat originally held his land. (3) The Village Advisory Committee and the Consolidation Officer shall, in the preparation of a scheme of consolidation, be guided by such principles as may be prescribed : provided that the market value of the land allotted under the scheme to a raiyat or an under raiyat shall as nearly as possible be equal to the market value of the land held by him before the confirmation of the scheme. (4) For the purpose of sub-section (1), it shall be lawful for the Consolidation Officer: (i) to direct that any land specifically assigned for any public purpose shall cease to be so assigned and to assign any other land for such public purposes ; (ii) to assign additional lands for public purposes ; and (iii) to direct that any area out of the lands set apart for public purposes shall be used for the construction of houses for land.-less labourers. (5) In addition to the particulars contained in the registers prepared under Sec.9 (which shall be appended to the scheme), the scheme shall specify - (i) the description and area of the new holding proposed to be allotted to a raiyat and the market value thereof ; (ii) the description and area of lands proposed to be set apart for public purposes ; (iii) the description and area of lands, if any, proposed to be set apart for the construction of houses for landless labourers ; (iv) the amount of compensation payable to a raiyat, who is allotted a holding, the market value of which less than that of the original holding; (v) the sum of money to be recovered from any raiyat who is allotted a holding, the market value of which is higher than that of his original holding ; (vi) the rent payable for the existing holding ; (vii) the rent proposed to be fixed for the new holding ; (viii) the incumbrances if any, on any plot of the land comprised in the existing holding of raiyat; (ix) the encumbrances, if any, to be transferred and attached to any plot of the land comprised in the new holding proposed to be allotted to raiyat; and (x) any other particulars that may be prescribed. (6) There shall be appended to the map prepared under Sec.8 another map showing the position of the plots and areas allotted to each raiyat and those reserved for public purposes after consolidation. (7) Where additional lands are allotted for public purposes (including construction of houses for landless labourers) such lands shall be contributed by the raiyats in proportion to the market value of their lands : provided that no land shall be contributed under this sub-section by a raiyat who holds land equal to or less than the prescribed area. (8) The amount of compensation referred to in clauses (iv) and (v) of sub-section (5) shall be determined so far as practicable, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Sec.28 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894 ). " Sec.12 of the Act provides for publication of the draft scheme. (8) The amount of compensation referred to in clauses (iv) and (v) of sub-section (5) shall be determined so far as practicable, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Sec.28 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894 ). " Sec.12 of the Act provides for publication of the draft scheme. The said provision as it stood before the 1975 Amendment reads as follows: "publication of draft scheme.- (1) When the draft scheme of consolidation is ready, the consolidation Officer shall cause it to be published in the manner laid down in sub-section (2) of Sec.3, and a notice shall be served on every raiyat and under raiyat of the village informing him of the publication and of the place where the draft scheme may be inspected. (2) Any person likely to be affected by the scheme may, within thirty days of the date of such publication, make any objection in writing to the Consolidation Officer stating : (i) the nature of his interest or right in or over any land ; (ii) the manner in which such interest or right is likely to be adversely affected, and (iii) the amount and particulars of his claim to compensation, in any, for such interest or right: provided that no claim for compensation on account of the extinction or diminution of any interest or right in or over any road, street, lane, path, channel, drain, tank, pasture or other land served for public purposes shall be entertained. " 11. It is admitted that by Act No.27 of 1975 the Legislature made a drastic amendment in various provisions of the Act including Sections 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. The Legislature had also inserted, inter alia, the provisions therein being Sec.10-A thereof, which reads as follows : "bar to objection.- No question in respect of any entry made in the map or registers prepared under Sec.9 or the statement of principles prepared under Sec.9-A relating to the Consolidation area, which might or ought to have been raised under Sec.10 but has not been raised, shall not be rained or heard at any subsequent stage of the Consolidation Proceeding. " 12. " 12. In Sudamia Devi V/s. State of Bihar and others, reported in 1980 BBCJ 503 : 1980 BLJ 439 , a Division Bench of this Court held as follows : "learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents are not entitled to raise objection under Sec.12 (2) of the Act as they did not raise any such objection under Sec.10 of this Act in respect of the entry made in the register. We are unable to accept this contention. It is clear that the survey authorities made entries in favour of respondents No.5 and 6 as also in favour of the petitioner. The survey entry suggested that both the petitioner and respondents no.5 and 6 are entitled to half and half in respect of the disputed property. The petitioner raised objection in respect of the entry in the register and she succeeded before the Assistant Consolidation officer. Against that order respondents No, 5 and 6 preferred an appeal under Sec.10 (6) of the Act. It is, therefore, clear that respondents No.5 and 6 raised objections about the entry in the register under Sec.10 (6) of the Act and as such respondents No.5 and 6 are entitled to raise such objection under Sec.12 (2) of the Act. " 13. In Jagarnath Thakur V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1984 BBCJ 140 : 1984 BLJ 333 (DB), a Division Bench of this Court held that Sec.10-D of the act is prospective. It was further held therein that the ban under Sec.10-A of the Act divested the power to the authorities superior to the Consolidation officer to reopsn the matter relating to the entry in the register. However, in the said decision it was held that power to the Director under Sec.35 of the act is very wide and the said power has to be exercised only by the Director of consolidation and not by any other authority. 14. In Shyam Bihari Upadhyay V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1985 BBCJ 176 : 1985 BLJ 172 (DB), a Bench of this Court held that the power under Section 35 of the Act can be exercised by the Director of Consolidation either suo motu or on an application. 14. In Shyam Bihari Upadhyay V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1985 BBCJ 176 : 1985 BLJ 172 (DB), a Bench of this Court held that the power under Section 35 of the Act can be exercised by the Director of Consolidation either suo motu or on an application. In the said decision it has further been held that when such revisional power is exercised by the Director under Sec.10-A of the Act, the same would not operate as a bar on the power of the Director as thereby the question of reopening of the question at a subsequent stage of the proceeding does not come in. 15. In Shiv Kumar Thakur V/s. State of Bihar, 1985 PLJR 986:1985 BLJ 479, a learned Single Judge of this Court also held that the Director of Consolidation while exercising his revisional power can in the interest of justice, examine the regularity or otherwise in a consolidation proceeding or propriety of any order apart from its correctness and legality. 16. However, none of the aforementioned cases are exactly on the point as in those cases either the parties filed objections under Sec.10 (2) and Section 12 (2) or filed objection after the coming into operation of Sec.10-A of the act. 17. From a perusal of the relevant provisions of the Act as they stood before the amendment were carried out, it is evident that a register of land comprised in the notified area together with a map were to be prepared in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X of the Bihar Tenancy Act. 18. In this case it has been admitted that the father of the petitioner filed objection under Sec.103-A of the Bihar Tenancy Act, which was rejected. The father of the petitioner or for that matter the petitioner did not challenge the decision of the survey settlement authorities either by filing a suit in a civil court or taking recourse to other provisions of the said Act. In terms of the provisions of the Bihar Tenancy Act the entries in the record-of-rights prepared under the Act would be presumed to be correct. Such an entry made in the record-of-rights, evidently is to be made after the procedure contained in the Bihar Tenancy Act are complied with. In terms of the provisions of the Bihar Tenancy Act the entries in the record-of-rights prepared under the Act would be presumed to be correct. Such an entry made in the record-of-rights, evidently is to be made after the procedure contained in the Bihar Tenancy Act are complied with. Only thereafter a register of land in terms of Sec.9 of the Act was to be prepared, apprently on the basis of the entries made in the record-of-rights and the map so prepared. In this connection, it may be useful to mention that the entry in the register of land not only the name of the raiyat is to be mentioned but also the area and serial number of the plot of land held by the raiyats either having right of occupancy therein or having no such right of occupancy etc. , are also to be mentioned. 19. Section 10 of the Act postulates publication of registers at that stage and by reason of Sec.2 thereof a provision has been made for a person interested in the land included in any entry in the register to file an objection therein. 20. Although, apparently no consequence is provided for in the event of failure of a person to file such an objection, but it is evident that if such objection is not filed within the prescribed psriod the concerned Consolidation Officer is required to visit the village in question on a date with previous notice given in the prescribed manner to the concerned parties for the purpose of deciding the objections, if any. 21. Sub-section (4) of Sec.10 of the Act provides that an appeal may be preferred before the Director of Consolidation by any person aggrieved by any order of the Consolidation Officer. It is, therefore, clear that an order on objection made under sub-section (2) of Sec.10 of the Act is subject to the decision of the appellate authority or that of the revisional authority if a revision is filed terms of Sec.35 of the Act. 22. It is, therefore, clear that an order on objection made under sub-section (2) of Sec.10 of the Act is subject to the decision of the appellate authority or that of the revisional authority if a revision is filed terms of Sec.35 of the Act. 22. The intent of the Legislature is evident from the fact that after an objection filed under sub-section (2) of Sec.10 of the Act is disposed of, the consolidation Officer is required to visit the village again, on a date for which previous notice in the prescribed manner is to be given for the purpose of consulting the Village Advisory Committee and such raiyats as may be available for the purpose of preparation of draft scheme for the consolidation of holdings in respect of the notified area. 23. Section 11 of the Act enumerates the factors relevant for the purpose of preparation of such a scheme which also lays down the duties and functions of the Village Advisory Committee and the Consolidation Officer. While preparing such a scheme, the Consolidation Officer has been conferred with a wide power. Draft of such a scheme is necessary to be published and notice to be served on every raiyat and under raiyat of the village so that any of them may file an objection relevant thereto. 24. Ex-fade an objection envisaged under sub-section (2) of Sec.12 of the Act does not envisaged any objection with regard to the particular entry made in the register of land. In terms of sub-section (2) of Sec.12 any person likely to be affected by the scheme may make objection stating, inter alia, the nature of his interest or right in or over any land apparently for the purpose of objecting as to how and in what manner his interest or right is likely to be adversely affected and in which manner if the draft scheme is made final. In my opinion, therefore, in an enquiry for disposal of objection under subsection (2)of Sec.12 of the Act the entry made in the register of lands cannot be re-opened. 25. In my opinion, therefore, in an enquiry for disposal of objection under subsection (2)of Sec.12 of the Act the entry made in the register of lands cannot be re-opened. 25. At this juncture it may be relevant to mention that by Bihar Act no.27 of 1975, Sections 12-A and 12-B of the Act were inserted, which read as follows : "section 12-A - Disposal of objections.- (1) All objections received by the assistant Consolidation Officer shall, as soon as may be, after the expiry of the period specified in Sec.12 be submitted by him to the Consolidation Officer who shall dispose of the same, in the manner hereinafter laid down, after notice is given to the parties concerned and the Village Advisory Committee. (2) Any person aggrieved by the order of Consolidation Officer under sub-section (1) may, within thirty days of the date of the order, file an appeal before the Assistant Director of Consolidation whose decision shall, except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, be final. (3) The Consolidation Officer shall, before deciding the objection and the Assistant Director of Consolidation may, before deciding any appeal make local inspection of the plots in dispute after giving notice to the parties concerned and the Village Advisory Committee. (3) The Consolidation Officer shall, before deciding the objection and the Assistant Director of Consolidation may, before deciding any appeal make local inspection of the plots in dispute after giving notice to the parties concerned and the Village Advisory Committee. " "section 12-B.- Revision of the Draft Consolidation Scheme.- The Consolidation Officer or the Assistant Director of Consolidation, as the case may be, on being satisfied that material injustice is likely to be caused to a number of raiyats or under raiyats in giving effect to the draft consolidation scheme as prepared by the Assistant consolidation Officer or as subsequently modified by the Consolidation Officer, as the case may be, and that a fair and proper allotment of land to the raiyats or the under raiyat of the unit is not possible without revising the draft consolidation scheme or getting a fresh one prepared, it shall be lawful, for reasons to be recorded in writing for - (i) the Consolidation Officer, to revise the draft consolidation scheme, after giving to the raiyats or under raiyats concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard or to remand the same to the Assistant Consolidation Officer with such directions as the Consolidation Officer may consider necessary ; and (ii) the Assistant Director of Consolidation to revise the draft consolidation scheme after giving to the raiyats or under raiyats concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard or to remand the same to the Assistant Consolidation Officer or the Consolidation Officer, as the assistant Director of Consolidation may think fit with such directions as he may consider necessary. " 26. Plainly enough, the determination of the objection under sub-section (2)of Sec.12 in terms of Sec.12-A is confined to the draft scheme prepared under Sec.11 of the Act and not in respect of register of lands prepared under Sec.9 thereof. 27. " 26. Plainly enough, the determination of the objection under sub-section (2)of Sec.12 in terms of Sec.12-A is confined to the draft scheme prepared under Sec.11 of the Act and not in respect of register of lands prepared under Sec.9 thereof. 27. From a perusal of the provisions contained in Sections 12-A and 12-B of the Act vis-a-vis Sections 10 (3) and 10 (4) of the Act, there cannot be any doubt that the scope and purport of all objections filed under the provisions of the Act are absolutely different and distinct ; inasmuch as the Consolidation Officer and/or appellate authority while determining an objection under sub-section (2) of section 10 of the Act is concerned or with the register of land with which enteries only two parties who claim interest in respect of the land are concerned therewith in an objection filed under sub-section (2) of Sec.12 of the Act not only the interest of an individual is to be considered but also the interest of a number of raiyats or under raiyats who may be affected by the scheme are also to be considered. 28. I am, therefore, of the opinion that while entertaining the objections under Sec.12 (2) of the Act, the Consolidation Officer will have no jurisdiction to determine the matter which purportedly falls for consideration while determining the objections under Sec.10 (2) thereof. In other words, an objection which can be taken at the stage of Sec.10 cannot be permitted to be taken nor is meant to be taken at the stage of Sec.12 of the Act. The scope, purport and effect of Sections 10 and 12 of the Act are absolutely distinct and separte. 29. It may further be clarified that under Sec.12 (2) of the Act only such raiyat or under raiyat or other person can file an objection whose names have been entered in the register of the land as only such person who may be affected by the scheme of Consolidation prepared under Sec.11 of the Act and not such persons who according to the Consolidation authorities have no interest in the land itself as their names have not been entered in the register of lands. 30. In this view of the matter a further question may arise for consideration as to why then the Legislature had brought in Sec.10-A of the Act by reason of Bihar Act No.27 of 1975. 30. In this view of the matter a further question may arise for consideration as to why then the Legislature had brought in Sec.10-A of the Act by reason of Bihar Act No.27 of 1975. The answer to this question appears to be simple and as has been found in the decision of Division Bench of this Court in shyam Bihari Upadhyas case (supra ). Sec.10-A of the Act evidently is clarificatory and/or explanatory in nature. 31. Further, from the tenor of Sec.10-A of the Act it is evident that the Legislature in its wisdom thought it fit to clarify that any question relating to the entry in the register of the land shall not be allowed to be taken in a subsequent stage if the same was not taken as provided for under sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Act. 32. By the said provision the Legislature had merely filled up lacuna in the legislation as Sec.10 of the Act as it stood prior to 1975 Amendment did not lay down the consequence as to what would happen if no objection under section 10 (2) of the Act is filed at all. The bar as laid down under Sec.10-A of the Act was implicit prior to 1975 amendment but the same has now been expressly provided for. A person although had been given an opportunity to file objection at various stages during the preparation of the survey record-of-rights and having failed therein is merely provided with another opportunity to have his say before the consolidation authorities under the provisions of the said Act. It is, therefore, clear that such opportunity in relation to the same subject-matter need not be given at different stages of the same proceedings. In my opinion, different matters in the consolidation proceedings are required to be taken into consideration at different stages and it cannot be presumed one matter which is to be determined at one stage will be required to be determined at a later stage over again. In other words, one stage of the proceeding being distinct and separate from the other, no question of overlapping thereof at different stages arises. 33. In other words, one stage of the proceeding being distinct and separate from the other, no question of overlapping thereof at different stages arises. 33. It may be pointed out that the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities are wide and while determining any matter within the purview of the said act it was within their domain to decide a series of dispute including the title in respect of the land, in question and also other disputes amongst the parties concerned. In such a situation the Legislature thought it fit to grant another opportunity of hearing to the person who objects to the entry in the register of land despite a statutory presumption in favour of correctness of such entry. A person who fails to avail even this opportunity could not be permitted to agitate the said question over again in the subsequent proceedings. 34. Having considered the case from all its ramifications, I am of the view that the authorities under the Act while determining the objection under subsection (2) of Sec.12 thereof cannot decide the matter falling within the scope and purview of Sec.10 (2) thereof. However, the Legislature even then thought it expedient to provide with a remedy in a case of error of substantial nature in the entries made in the land register or in a case which may occasion a failure of justice, by providing for an opportunity to file a revision application before the Director of Consolidation in terms of Sec.35 of the Act. 35. It may be true that the petitioner was not in a position to file objection under sub-section (2) of Sec.10 of the Act as he was not mentally fit to file such an objection by 24-12-1972 to 4-10-1973. If there occurred a failure of justice by reason of the petitioners failure to file such an objection, it was and still is open to him to file a revision application in terms of Sec.35 of the Act after he was in a position to file such application. 36. If there occurred a failure of justice by reason of the petitioners failure to file such an objection, it was and still is open to him to file a revision application in terms of Sec.35 of the Act after he was in a position to file such application. 36. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the Director of Consolidation ought not to have dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioner summarily but ought to have treated the same as revision application with regard to the petitioners objection for correction of the entry in the register of land and dispose of the same after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the concerned respondents. 37. In the result, this writ petition is allowed to the extent mentioned hereinbefore and the Director of Consolidation (respondent No.2) is hereby directed to dispose of the petitioners revision application merits treating the same to be a revision relating to the objection of the petitioner, questioning the entry of the name of respondent No.6 in the registers of lands. 38. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will, however, be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.