Patna High Court - Orders
Chandra Bhushan Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 28 June, 2013
Author: Birendra Prasad Verma
Bench: Birendra Prasad Verma
Patna High Court CWJC No.10299 of 2000 (6) dt.28-06-2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10299 of 2000
======================================================
1. Chandra Bhushan Singh son of late Hirdaya Singh
2. Ramdeo Singh son of late Inder Singh ( Name has been expunged vide
order dated 2.7.2010 and in his place his sole heir has been substituted)
Renu Devi
3. Ram Janam Singh son of late Jai Narain Singh
4. Sakaldeo Singh son of late Jai Narain Singh
All are residents of village-Hansi Kewal, P.S.-Bhagwanpur, District-
Vaishali.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna
3. The Consolidation Officer, Lalganj, Vaishali
4. Shiv Nath Pandey son of Baikunth Pandey
5. Deo Nath Pandey son of Baikunth Pandey
Both are residents of village-Hansi Kewal, P.S.-Bhagwanpur, District-
Vaishali.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10300 of 2000
======================================================
1. Chandra Bhushan Singh son of late Hirdaya Singh
2. Randeo Singh son of late Inder Singh
3. Ramjan Singh son of late Jai Narayan Singh
4. Sakaldeo Singh son of late Jai Narayan Singh
All are residents of village-Hansi Kewal, P.S.-Bhagwanpur(Lalganj),
District-Vaishali.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna
3. Consolidation Officer, Lalganj, Vaishali
4. Nawal Singh
5. Kamal Singh
6. Kishundeo Singh
7. Keshav Singh
8. Chandeshwar Singh
9. Nandeshwar Singh
All are sons of late Ram Swarath Singh
10. Bishundeo Singh son of late Satyanarayan Singh
11. Yogendra Singh son of late Jai Narayan Singh (Name has been
expunged vide order dated 25.6.2010)
12. Lalbaboo Singh son of late Jai Narayan Singh (Name has been
expunged vide order dated 25.6.2010)
All are residents of village-Hansikewal, P.S.-Bhagwanpur(Lalganj),
Distt.-Vaishali.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.10299 of 2000 (6) dt.28-06-2013 2
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4725 of 2001
======================================================
1. Kamal Singh
2. Kishun Singh
3. Keshav Singh
4. Nawal Singh
5. Chandeshwar Singh
6. Nandeshwar Singh
All are sons of late Ram Swarath Singh
7. Bishnudeo Singh son of late Jagnarain Singh
All are residents of village-Hansi Kewal, P.S.-Bhagwanpur, District-
Vaishali.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna
3. The Deputy Director, Vaishali at Hajipur
4. Consolidation Officer, Lalganj, Vaishali
( Respondents Ist Set )
5. Chandra Bhusan Singh son of Late Hirday Singh
6. Ram Deo Singh son of Late Inder Singh
7. Ram Janam Singh
8. Sakaldeo Singh
Both are sons of Late Jain Narain Singh
All are residents of village-Hansi Kewal, P.S.-Bhagwanpur, District-
Vaishali.
( Respondents 2nd Set)
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CWJC No.10299 of 2000)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Sunil Kumar Ravi, A.C. to A.A.G.-III
(In CWJC No.10300 of 2000)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Sunil Kumar Ravi, A.C. to A.A.G.-III
(In CWJC No.4725 of 2001)
For the Petitioner/s : None
For the Respondent
Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, A.C. to S.C. 17
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD
VERMA
ORAL ORDER
Patna High Court CWJC No.10299 of 2000 (6) dt.28-06-2013 3
6 28-06-2013Heard the parties.
2. In this batch of three writ petitions, issues of facts and issues of law are common and identical, therefore, with the consent of the parties all these three writ petitions are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.
3. In all these three writ petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by the common order dated 15.10.1999 passed analogously by the respondent Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna in Consolidation Revision No. 1824 of 1983, Consolidation Revision No. 1825 of 1983 and Consolidation Revision No. 1826 of 1983, whereby and whereunder Consolidation Revision No. 1824 of 1983 and 1826 of 1983 filed by the petitioners of C.W.J.C. Nos. 10299 of 2000 and 10300 of 2000 have been dismissed, whereas Consolidation Revision No. 1825 of 1983 filed by them has been allowed. Therefore, respondents therein have preferred C.W.J.C. No. 4725 of 2001 assailing the validity and correctness of the aforesaid common revisional order dated 15.10.1999, which has been brought on record as Annexure-8 in C.W.J.C. No. 10299 of 2000.
4. In fact, this is the second round of litigation before this Court amongst the parties. On previous occasion the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 10299 of 2000 and C.W.J.C. No. 10300 of 2000 and the respondents of C.W.J.C. No. 4725 of 2001 had filed C.W.J.C. No. 1886 of 1985, C.W.J.C. No. 1888 of 1985 and C.W.J.C. No. 1730 of 1985 respectively assailing the orders passed by the respondent Consolidation Officer, the appellate authority as also the revisional authority under the provisions of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 ( in short Act ). After hearing the Patna High Court CWJC No.10299 of 2000 (6) dt.28-06-2013 4 parties, all the three writ petitions of the year 1985, referred to above, were decided separately, but on the same day i.e. on 22.7.1996. The learned single Judge of this Court after taking into consideration the factual background and nature of disputes between the parties had set aside the orders passed by the original authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority, and, thereafter, had remitted the matter back to the revisional authority for fresh decision in accordance with law in the light of the observations and directions made therein in those separate orders dated 22.7.1996 passed separately in the above three writ petitions of the year 1985.
5. On remand, all the three consolidation revision applications, referred to above, were taken up together and have been disposed of by the impugned common order dated 15.10.1999, which is being assailed in all the three writ petitions, though for different reasons.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the issues indicated by the learned single Judge of this Court in the separate orders dated 22.7.1996 passed with respect to all the three writ petitions of the year 1985, referred to above, have not been taken into consideration by the respondent Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna, while passing the impugned common order dated 15.10.1999. It is also contended that documents produced by the parties have neither been properly considered nor it has been discussed by the respondent Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna. According to him, in view of the order of remand made by this Court, the respondent Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna was obliged to consider all the materials/evidence produced by the parties very Patna High Court CWJC No.10299 of 2000 (6) dt.28-06-2013 5 meticulously, because both sides have raised claims of right and title with respect to the lands in dispute, but that has not been done by the respondent Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and authorities under the Act has fairly conceded that the entire matter requires reconsideration by the revisional authority. Unfortunately, despite valid service of notice, the private respondents are not represented in C.W.J.C. Nos. 10299 of 2000 and 10300 of 2000. Similarly, learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in C.W.J.C. No. 4725 of 2001 is also not present to press this application. Therefore, the matter could have been dismissed. However, since the issues and facts are common and identical and the order under challenge is also common, therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of that matter also on merit.
8. After having heard the parties and on consideration of the entire materials available on record, this Court is of the opinion that all the three matters require reconsideration and fresh decision by the revisional authority under the provisions of the Act. While the previous writ petitions filed on behalf of the petitioners in the year 1985 were disposed of separately on 22.7.1996, but the issues of facts as also the issues of law were discussed and indicated threadbare, and thereafter the cases were remanded to the revisional authority to consider the matter afresh, but apparently the orders passed by this Court on previous occasion have not been fully complied with by the respondent Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna, and such a serious issue of right and title involving in the lands in dispute amongst the parties has been decided in a most mechanical and arbitrary Patna High Court CWJC No.10299 of 2000 (6) dt.28-06-2013 6 manner. Evidence produced by the parties were required to be examined meticulously and were required to be discussed fully, but that has not been done by the respondent Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna while passing the impugned common order dated 15.10.1999 analogously in Consolidation Revision Nos. 1824 of 1983-84, 1825 of 1983-84 and 1826 of 1983-84.
9. In the result, all the three writ petitions succeed. The impugned common revisional order dated 15.10.1999 is set aside and all the three matters are remitted back to the respondent Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna for deciding them afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties and by taking into consideration the observations made by the learned single Judge of this Court in separate orders dated 22.7.1996 passed with respect to each of the cases.
10. Since all the matters are very old, therefore, it is expected that respondent Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna shall make all endeavours to decide all the three matters afresh at an early date preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the present order.
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) sudip/-