Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 979 (PAT)

Suresh Pd. Singh v. State Of Bihar

2007-05-21

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 sought a direction for quashing the judgment and order dated 4.7.1988, placed at annexure-7, recorded by respondent no. 2, the Joint Director, Consolidation, Patna, in Consolidation Revision no. 3018 of 1985 in exercise of the powers under Sec.35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956(Act), whereby, and whereunder, the order dated 8.11.1985 passed in Appeal No. 437 of 1985-86, by respondent no. 3 in terms of the provisions of Sec.10(3) of the Act, as well as, the order passed on 27.11.1979 by respondent no. 4 in Objection Case No. 195/1979 were reversed. 2. It appears from the record that the petitioner on learning that the disputed land measuring about 8 and 1/2 decimals had been recorded in the name of Bihar Sarkar(State of Bihar) filed his objection in respect of the disputed land under Sec.10 of the Act, inter alia, contending that the name of the Government is wrongly or mistakably recorded in the record of rights and also, contending that the manner and methodology by which his name came to be struck off and the name of the Government in respect of the disputed land came to be recorded in the record of rights is not in accordance with law as he was never given an opportunity of hearing. This contention was upheld by the authority. Therefore, an appeal was filed against that order of respondent no. 4, the Consolidation Officer, unsuccessfully. However, fn exercise of powers under Sec.35 of the Act the revisional authority, on hearing the parties and considering the facts reached to a conclusion that the objection of the petitioner is not justified and reversed the concurrent finding of facts recorded by two authorities, namely, respondent no. 4, the Consolidation Officer, as well as, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, respondent no. 3 in appeal. 3. In the earlier round of litigation the three authorities had decided in favour of the petitioner in respect of the disputed land which was challenged by respondent no. 4, the Consolidation Officer, as well as, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, respondent no. 3 in appeal. 3. In the earlier round of litigation the three authorities had decided in favour of the petitioner in respect of the disputed land which was challenged by respondent no. 5 Hare Krishna Pandey by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being C.W.J.C. No. 922 of 1987 in which the earlier impugned order dated 20.12.1986 passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation, Bihar in Revision Case No. 3018 of 1985 came to be quashed on 9.7.1987 in respect of the disputed land measuring 8 and 1/2 decimals which appertains to R.S. Plot No. 469, C.S. Plot No. 69 at Village Khajaul Bajitpur, PS. Garaul within the district of Vaishali. The petitioner in that petition and respondent no. 5 in this petition had raised the contention that he had been in possession of the disputed land. In that petition this Court allowed the petition and remanded the matter by directing the Director, Consolidation, to reconsider the case of the parties in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. 4. Thereafter, respondent no. 2, the Joint Director, Consolidation, Patna, reconsidered and re-decided the revision and allowed the revision application quashing the order of the Consolidation Officer, as well as, the appellate authority recorded in favour of the present petitioner. The claim of the petitioner is not contested and opposed by respondent no. 5 as he remained absent though duly served. 5. Learned counsel for the parties are heard. The entire record is examined and evaluated. Earlier litigation record is, also, considered. The relevant propositions of law are, also, taken into consideration. 6. Sec.10 of the Act provides for publication of registers of lands and statement of principles and objections thereon. It reads hereunder as: "Publication of registers of lands and statement of principles and objections thereon.- (1) The registers prepared under sub-section (2) of Section 9 and the statement of principles prepared under Section 9A shall be published in the manner prescribed and shall remain published for not less than 30 days. (2) Any person may, within 45 days of the date of the publication of the register under sub-section (1) file before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, objection in respect there of, disputing the correctness and nature of entries in the records or in the statement of principles. (2) Any person may, within 45 days of the date of the publication of the register under sub-section (1) file before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, objection in respect there of, disputing the correctness and nature of entries in the records or in the statement of principles. (3) The Assistant Consolidation Officer shall, after hearing the persons interested and after such enquiries as may be necessary, decide the objection, settle the disputes or correct the mistake, as far as may be, by way of compromise between the parties appearing before him and pass orders on the basis of such compromise. (4) All cases which are not disposed of by the Assistant Consolidation Officer under sub-section (3), all cases relating to valuation of plots and all cases relating to valuation of structures, tree, bamboo-clumps, well or other improvements for calculating the amount thereof, and its apportionment amongst co-owners, if there be more owners than one, shall be forwarded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer to the Consolidation Officer who shall dispose of the same in the manner prescribed. (5) Where objections have been filed against the statement of principles under sub-section (2) of sec. 10 the Assistant Consolidation Officer, after affording opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned and after taking into consideration the view of the Village Advisory Committee, shall submit his report to the Consolidation Officer who shall dispose of the objections in the manner prescribed. (6) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer or Consolidation Officer under sub-section (3), (4) or (5) may, within 30 days of such order, file an appeal before the Assistant Director of Consolidation, whose decision, except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, shall be final. (7) The Consolidation Officer shall and the Assistant Director of Consolidation may, where necessary, before deciding an objection or an appeal, make local inspection of the unit, after giving due notice to the parties concerned and the Village Advisory Committee." 7. In terms of the aforesaid provisions, respondent no. 4, the Consolidation Officer, Garaul, within the District of Vaishalheld the contention of the petitioner and accepted the objection. In terms of the aforesaid provisions, respondent no. 4, the Consolidation Officer, Garaul, within the District of Vaishalheld the contention of the petitioner and accepted the objection. Therefore, the name of the petitioner came to be entered into the record of rights which was challenged in appeal, unsuccessfully, and again there was a revision in which the earlier two orders concurrently recorded by the two authorities under Sec.10, as well as, under Sec.10(3) of the Act came to be reversed. 8. It appears from the record that the objection of the petitioner was upheld by the respondent no. 4, the Consolidation Officer under Sec.10 of the Act and it was confirmed in an appeal under Sec.10(3) of the Act but the revisional authority quashed them. It appears further that simply because the matter was remanded, the revisional authority quashed the orders of Consolidation Officer, as well as, the appellate authority without going into the factual material aspect that the direction of remand is to reconsider the case in accordance with law. There are no convincing and clear reasons as to why concurrent finding of facts recorded by two authorities came to be reversed. It is incumbent upon the revisional Court or the revisional authority to assign clear and convincing reasons for setting aside the concurrent finding of facts. So is not the scenario in the present case in the impugned order of revision under Sec.35 of the Act. The powers vested in the revisional Court under Sec.35 of the Act are required to be examined in accordance with law and the object of the Section is to empower the Director of Consolidation to see that the subordinate courts are not acting arbitrarily and illegally in the exercise of their jurisdiction. The scope in the revision is limited unlike the appellate authority which can reappreciate and re-examine the finding of facts. Inferences or surmises would not satisfy and would not be legal to quash the concurrent finding of facts. It is incumbent upon the revisional authority to deal with and show in the impugned order as to how and why the finding of facts are sought to be reversed. 9. Sec.35 of the Act provides for revision and reference. Inferences or surmises would not satisfy and would not be legal to quash the concurrent finding of facts. It is incumbent upon the revisional authority to deal with and show in the impugned order as to how and why the finding of facts are sought to be reversed. 9. Sec.35 of the Act provides for revision and reference. It reads hereunder as: "Revision and reference.-The Director of Consolidation may of his own motion or on the application of any party or on reference being made by any subordinate authority, call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by such authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceeding; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, and may after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit." 10. It could very well be seen from the aforesaid provision that the Director of Consolidation is empowered with the revisional charge and he can in the interest of justice examine the regularity or. otherwise of any consolidation proceedings, propriety of any order, its correctness and legality. 11. The impugned order in the light of the facts in the backdrop of the profile of the entire record does not show any justification for the interference by respondent no. 2 in exercise of his revisional power under Sec.35 of the Act for quashing of the concurrent finding of facts recorded by two authorities, namely, respondent no. 4, the Consolidation Officer, as well as, the Deputy Director, the appellate authority. 12. In the net result, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order passed in revision is not justified and is not legal and, therefore, it shall stand quashed restoring the orders of the two authorities namely, respondent nos. 3 and 4, the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Vaishali at Hajipur and the Consolidation Officer, Goraul, Vaishali, respectively. 13. This petition, therefore, shall stand allowed without any order as to costs.