Allowed

Bindeshwari Rai and Anr. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC19 May 2015CWJC/1178/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging consolidated land adjudication orders. Court held authorities failed to consider key documents. Writ allowed; subordinate orders set aside and matter remitted for fresh adjudication under Section 35.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 09.04.1996 by Deputy Director and order dated 26.12.1996 by Joint Director set aside. Matter remitted to Deputy Director, Vaishali for fresh adjudication under Section 35.

Bindeshwari Rai and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Property and Title | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1178 of 1997

¶2

====================================================== 1. Bindeshwari Rai Son of Late Jagdaun Rai 2. Dineshwar Rai, Son of Late Jagdaun Rai Both residents of Village- Subhai, Police Station- Hajipur, DistrictVaishali. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna. 3. Joint Director, Consolidation at Muzaffarpur. 4. Deputy Director, Consolidation, Vaishali. 5. Consolidation Officer, Katra…………… Respondents 1^st set. 6. Nagina Rai, Son of Dal Singar Rai, resident of Village- Mazieawad, P.S.- Hajipur Sadar, District- Vaishali. Respondent 2^nd Set. 7. Nand Kishore Tiwary, Son of Singeshwar Tiwary, resident of VillageBishanpur, P.S.- Hajipur, District- Vaishali. .... .... Respondent 3^rd Set. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate Mr Bimal Kumar Mr. Nilesh Kumar Mr. Md. Imteyaz Ahmad For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Gp2) Mr. Ramesh Kumar Choudhary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶3

14 19-05-2015 The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 26.12.1996, passed by the Joint Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur in Revision Case No. 112 of 1996 affirming the order dated 09.04.1996 passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation in Case No. 2381 of 1986.

¶4

The land in dispute is situated in Revenue Thana No. 96 within Hajipur Anchal in the district of Vaishali bearing Survey Khesra No. 269, area 8 decimals. The total area of Khesra No. 269 is 16 decimals, 8 decimals of the aforesaid Khesra no. 269

¶5

Patna High Court CWJC No.1178 of 1997 (14) dt.19-05-2015

¶6

2 / 3

¶7

was purchased through registered sale deed by the petitioners, the other 8 decimals of land was purchased by respondent no.6 in the name of his wife, namely, Kamli Devi. It appears that Kamli Devi gifted her share to others including respondent no.7. Thereafter the respondents started making claim on 8 decimals of land of Khesra No. 269 purchased by the petitioners on 01.03.1967, through registered sale deed. The petitioners succeeded before the Consolidation Officer, Hajipur. However, the respondents succeeded before the Deputy Director, Vaishali and the Joint Director, Consolidation.

¶8

The petitioners submit that both the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority did not consider a number of documents, namely, sale deed dated 01.03.1967 made in favour of the petitioners with respect to 8 decimals of land, another sale deed of 8 decimals made in favour of respondent no.6, in which the petitioners are shown as the boundary raiyat of old khatiyan, registered sale deed dated 20.08.1898, photo copy of the Mutation register, revenue records, inspection report dated 16.03.1996 of Assistant Consolidation Officer, Head Quarter, Hajipur.

¶9

I find that the petitioners have made out prima facie case for interfering with the order of the Deputy Director as

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.1178 of 1997 (14) dt.19-05-2015

¶11

3 / 3

¶12

well as the Joint Director, Consolidation.

¶13

In the result, this writ application is allowed. The order dated 09.04.1996 passed in Case No. 2381 of 1986 by the Deputy Director, Consolidation and order dated 26.12.1996, passed in Revision Case No. 112 of 1996 by the Joint Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur, are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Vaishali under Section 35 of the Act for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

¶14

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)

¶15

Uday/-

¶16

Bindeshwari Rai and Anr. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bindeshwari Rai and Anr. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Vidyawati Pathak and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Laldhari Yadav and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Parikcha Rai Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Sri Haribansh Pandey Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ramu Saffi and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Krishna Bihari Labh and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.