Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 392 (PAT)

Krishna Kr. Singh v. Director Consolidation

2007-02-21

J.N.BHATT

body2007
Judgment J.N.Bhatt, J. 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order, dated 12.1.1988, recorded by the respondent no. 1, the Director of Consolidation (flying Squad) in Rev. Case no. 896 of 1987 contained in Annexure 7 reversing the order of the appellate authority dated 8.4.1987 contained in Annexure 6 passed in favour of the petitioner and, also, the order dated 20.10.1986 passed by Chakbandi Officer, Belhar in Case no. 40 of 1986-87 under Sec.10(B) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (Act XXII, 1956), whereby, it is directed that the name of the respondent 2nd party be recorded in the land register after deleting the name of the petitioner, which is erroneous and bad in law. 2. Both the learned Counsel appearing for the parties have been heard, factual aspects are examined and the relevant proposition of law is, also, considered. 3. The dispute revolves round, is the homestead land bearing Kheshra no. 888 measuring 0.6 decimals which stood recorded in the name of one Most. Akuliya wife of Kashi Banwar and the land was Belagan and later she abandoned the land and the land came in khas possession of the petitioner. 4. The serious contention has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the order of the Director of Consolidation in revision reversing the order of the appellate authority is, quite, bad in law, unjust and not maintainable. In course of the submissions and arguments, this contention is countenanced by the learned Counsel for the respondent. 5. Both the learned Counsel appearing for the parties have taken this court through the testimonial collections of the facts and the relevant proposition of law. 6. Therefore, the short question, which emerges at this juncture for consideration and adjudication, is as to whether the order of the revisional authority i.e., the Director of Consolidation in exercise of his revisional powers under Sec.35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 could be said to be unjust, unreasonable, perverse requiring interference of this Court in terms of the provision of the Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. It would be appropriate at this juncture to examine and evaluate the statutory design and scheme of the Act, 1956. 7. It would be appropriate at this juncture to examine and evaluate the statutory design and scheme of the Act, 1956. It is an Act to provide for the consolidation of holdings and prevention of fragmentation as a part of agrarian reforms in the State of Bihar. It is amply clear from the preamble of the Act that the Act of 1956 is devised for consolidation of holdings, as well as, prevention of fragmentation >n the State of Bihar, which is injurious, and leading to consolidation of properties, as well as, prevention of fragmentation in respect of the agricultural land as a part of agrarian reforms in the State of Bihar. 8. The Act of 1956 is divided into four chapters. In Chapter II, elaborate provisions have been made relating to consolidation of holdings. In chapter III, provisions are incorporated as to how to treat the fragmentation and miscellaneous provisions are provided in the last Chapter. 9. The Bihar Consolidation of Holdings Rule, 1958 have been framed under the Act of 1956. The entire scheme, while read as a whole, undoubtedly, provides as to how to effect the underlying design of the Act. 10. The factual background is narrated in the petition, as" well as, in the impugned order by the revenue authorities. This court needs not, meticulously, reiterate all facts for reaching to the conclusion for the reason that the two authorities, namely, the appellate authority under subsection (6) of Sec.10 of the Act and revisional authority, under Sec.35 of the Act, have not applied mind to the vital issues raised in the case. It suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. It is, therefore, incumbent upon this Court to remit the matter to the Assistant Consolidation Officer for reconsideration of the matter afresh on all aspects and facts and materials placed before it and reach to a correct conclusion, in accordance with law. 11. After taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances and the relevant proposition of law and the impugned orders of three revenue authorities, it appears to this Court that the material documents under which the parties have advanced their rival claims have not been produced and the conjectures have been made and various material documentary evidence which is placed on record is not at all considered resulting into non-application of mind by the revenue courts. Who has the right to hold the disputed land could very well be established and adjudged from the revenue record, as well as, the documents of the parties. 12. It is not clear from the record as to whether such documents were supplied and considered. The ground of non-application of mind by the revisional authority itself is sufficient to quash and set aside the order of the revisional authority impugned in this petition as it goes to the root of the matter. 13. However, the important issue of consolidation and rights under the Act, 1956 and resultant entry and publication are the issues which require fresh consideration in the light of the documentary evidence of the parties, as well as, the documents produced on the record. 14. It is, therefore, thought expedient by this Court that the matter be remitted back to the revenue authority for hearing the revision afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties including to produce documents. 15. With these observations, the impugned order shall stand quashed and set aside. The matter is directed to be remitted to the revisional authority for fresh consideration in the light of the aforesaid observations. 16. In the result, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.