The High Court held that the Research Officer lacked jurisdiction to exercise revisional power under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The impugned order dated 18.05.1995 set aside; matter remitted to Director, Consolidation, Bihar for a decision afresh.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7548 of 1997
=========================================================== Badri Pandey, Son of Ram Naresh Pandey, resident of Village-Gorhan, P.S.Bhabhua, District-Kaimur (Bhabua).
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar.
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent (State) : Mr. Indrajeet Bhushan, Advocate (AC to GP-2)
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 16-04-2015
Heard the parties.
2. In order to challenge the order dated 18.05.1995
Patna High Court CWJC No.7548 of 1997 dt.16-04-2015
2/3
passed by the Research Officer, Directorate of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna in Revision Case No. 464 of 1993, preferred against the order passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Rohtas at Sasaram in Appeal No. 757 of 198788, a very short submission has been made on behalf of the petitioner that the Research Officer did not have jurisdiction to exercise revisional power under Section 35 of the “The Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956” (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟) .
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct in his submission that under Section 35 of the Act, it is the Director, Consolidation or any other Officer authorized in that behalf, who can have the jurisdiction of Revisional Authority and no other Authority or Officer could exercise such power. He submits that Research Officer is certainly not Director of Consolidation. He has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in a case “Danu Mahto vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.” , reported in “1998 (1) PLJR” as well as upon another order of this Court dated 09.05.1997 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11518 of 1994, wherein, the Court came to specific finding that the Research Officer was an Officer in the rank of Deputy Collector, whereas, the Deputy Director,
Patna High Court CWJC No.7548 of 1997 dt.16-04-2015
3/3
Consolidation, Rohtas himself was in the rank of Additional Collector.
5. I am convinced with the submission that the Research Officer could not have exercised revisional jurisdiction, in the facts and circumstances of the case, against the order of the Deputy Director, Consolidation, who was in the same rank or in higher rank than the Revisional Authority himself.
6. The impugned order dated 18.05.1995 cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside.
7. The matter is remitted back to the Director, Consolidation, Bihar for taking a decision afresh in accordance with law.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
Praveen-II/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Research Officer, Directorate of Consolidation, had jurisdiction to exercise revisional power under Section 35 of the Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Danu Mahto vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.Relied on¶21
1998 (1) PLJR
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Badri Pandey
The State of Bihar
The Research Officer, Directorate of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna
Deputy Director Consolidation, Rohtas
Consolidation Officer, Bhabua
Ravikant Chaubey
Chakradhari Sharan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
