Writ petition challenging orders of Consolidation Officer and Revisional Court in land consolidation, alleging non-consideration of evidence and statutory bar on objections. High Court found no patent illegality and dismissed the petition.
The writ application is dismissed finding no patent illegality in the impugned orders.
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.9841 of 1997
=========================================================== 1. Nand Kishore Singh 2. Nawal Kishore Singh
Both sons of Ram Sarikhan Singh (deceased), residents of village Brindawan, Musahari, P.S. & Anchal- Tariani, Sub-Division P.O.- Simraha via Tariyani, District- Sheohar.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. NIRMAL KUMAR SINHA 3 For the Respondent/s : Mr. (GP2)
Mr. Shankar Kishore Shah
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 23-04-2015
Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.
The private respondents herein were objector before the Consolidation Officer in respect of the subject land appertaining to new survey plot nos. 632 (43 decimals), 633 (38 decimals) and 634 (61 decimals). The Consolidation Officer heard both sides and appreciating the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence adduced on behalf of the parties on the point of possession found and held as under:-
“mijksDr rF;ks a ,o a lcqrks a ds vk/kkj ij bl okn ds l a c a /k es a fuEufyf[kr fu’d’kZ fudkys tk ldrs gS a %&
d- oknh us fooknh [ksljk dk ctjh, jftLV~zh dsokyk [kjhn fd;k gS
Patna High Court CWJC No.9841 of 1997 dt.23-04-2015
2/3
A
[k- [kjhnh x;h tehu ij oknh dk n[ky dCtk cjdjkj gS vkSj mldh ykxr jlhn o’kZ 1979 rd dVh gS A
x- O;ogkj U;k;ky; es a LoRo ls l a c a f/kr eqn~nk fopkjk/khu ugh a Fkk A oknh dh fooknh [ksljk ds LoRo ij fopkj djuk gS A
?k- izfroknh us gky losZ [kfr;ku ds iwoZ dk dksbZ lcqr ugh a fn[kyk;k gS A tcfd oknh ds ikl fuc a f/kr dsokyk gS A bl vk/kkj ij izfroknh ds gky losZ [kfr;ku bUnzk.k eks0 ;Fkkor j[kuk xyr izrhr gksrk gS A mijksDr rF;ks a ds fopkj.k ls vkosndx.kks a dk nkok lR; fl) gksrk gS
A
vr% vkns”k fn;k tkrk gS fd foi{kh jke ljh[k fl a g firk jke lqUnj flg ds [kkrk l a a 0 1240 losZ l a 0 633 jdok 38 Mh0 ,o a [kkrk l a 0 1261 losZ l a 0 632 jdok 43 Mh0 ,o a [ksljk 634 jdok 61 Mh0 [kkjht djds gjxSu flg firk vfHkyk[k fl a a g lk0 ekSts foUnkou eqlgjh ds [kkrk l a 0 1266 es a bUnzkt ntZ djs a A vU; lHkh vfHkys[k es a Hkh blh izdkj lq/kkj djs a A” The writ petitioner assailed the aforesaid order
unsuccessfully before the Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, the writ petitioner filed Revision Case No. 100/94 before the Joint Director, Consolidation. On reappraisal of the materials on record and after hearing the parties, the Revisional Court did not find any legal flaw in the order of the Consolidation Officer which was passed after appreciating the documents of title as well as evidence of possession. The revision application was dismissed. The said order has been impugned in the present writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that relevant evidence brought on record was not considered by the authorities which has rendered the order unsustainable in law. The initial objection filed before the Authority was barred under Section 10(2) and 12(2) of the Consolidation Act.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9841 of 1997 dt.23-04-2015
3/3
Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that there is nothing on record to show that the respondents even after having notice of the order could not raise any such objection. Further the bar as provided under the Act would not be applicable to the jurisdiction of the Revisional Court who has passed the order in the present case.
So far as the appreciation of the evidence is concerned, in my view, the order passed by the first authority under the Act is well discussed and well reasoned. The Revisional Court after hearing both the sides found no fundamental flaw in the order of the Consolidation Officer. So far as the bar of Section 10(A) is concerned, in my view, the same would not be applicable in this case, particularly, when no such issue appears to have been raised before the Consolidation Authority at the first instance.
For the reasons aforenoted, this Court finds no patent illegality in the order impugned in the present writ application meriting interference. The writ application is dismissed.
(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)
Pankaj/-
U
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the objection filed by the petitioner before the Authority was barred under Section 10(2) and 12(2) of the Consolidation Act.
Whether Section 10(A) of the Consolidation Act bars the jurisdiction of the Revisional Court in this case.
Whether there is patent illegality in the order of the Consolidation Officer and Revisional Court on appreciation of evidence.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Nand Kishore Singh
Nawal Kishore Singh
The State of Bihar
The Joint Registrar of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sitamarhi
Consolidation Officer, Belsand
KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
