Raghunath Prasad Singh and Another vs The Director of Consolidation and Others <BR> Raghunath Prasad Singh and Others Vs The Joint Director of Consolidation and Others

Sheema Ali Khan, J.—Two writ applications have been filed on behalf of the Petitioners challenging the order dated 15.1.1991, passed by the Joint Director, Consolidation. By the impugned order, the Joint Director, Consolidation has set aside the order dated 7.1.1989 passed by the Consolidation Officer and the order of the Deputy Director dated 3.7.1989.

The facts are that the recorded tenant of the lands in dispute, who are described at paragraph 4 of the writ application had four sons. One of the sons claiming to be the Karta of the family, executed a Bazidawa in favour of Smt. Ram Chandra Devi which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer on 7.1.1989 vide Annexure-1, as a result of which the name of Ram Chandra Devi the Petitioner was to be recorded in the Chak Khatiyan. The name of the Petitioner was thereafter mutated in the records of right. After the order dated 7.1.1989 two sons of the recorded tenant namely Bhola and Umesh applied for permission to sell part of the lands in question before the Consolidation Officer u/s 6 of the Consolidation Act. Permission was obtained on 11.2.1989 and part of the lands was sold to Respondent No. 4 on 17.3.1989. Against the order dated 11.2.1989 the Petitioners filed an appeal which was allowed by order dated 7.4.1989. An appeal was also filed by Respondent No. 4 who has stepped in the shoes of the recorded tenant (two sons) against the order dated 7.1.1989. The appeal of Respondent No. 4 was dismissed on 3.7.1989. A revision application was filed on behalf of Respondents against the order dated 3.7.1989 and against the order dated 11.2.1989. Both the revision applications have been disposed of by the common order dated 15.1.1991.

The submission on behalf of the Petitioners is that they had received no notice to appear in the revision application filed against the order dated 7.4.1989, which would be apparent from the order sheet annexed in the writ application numbered as CWJC No. 2025 of 1991. It is also submitted that on the date on which the permission was obtained i.e. 11.2.1989, the land holders did not have any title to the said lands, as Karta of the family had surrendered the lands by a Bazidawa. The document i.e. the Bazidawa was accepted by the Consolidation Officer and the application filed on behalf of the Petitioners was allowed on 7.1.1989. The consequence thereof is that the sale deed executed in favour of Respondent No. 4 as a result of the permission obtained on 11.2.1989 does not have any legs to stand upon.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 4 on the other hand submits that the Petitioners had appeared in the revision filed against the order dated 7.4.1989 and had filed their written submissions and argument, as such the submission is that they cannot have a grievance that notices were not served on them. In reply thereto the counsel for the Petitioners submits that although the Petitioners had come to the Court on 15.1.1991 the date on which the matter was heard, there was a notice that matters relating to the District of Vaishali have been postponed to 29th of April, 1989 and as such the Petitioners left the Court premises, besides which it has been argued that the written arguments or submissions made on behalf of the Petitioners has nowhere been considered in the impugned order. It is submitted and reiterated by the counsel for the -Petitioners that as far as the other revision application is concerned challenging the order dated 3.7.1989 the Petitioners did not receive notice which is apparent from Annexure-4.

Considering all aspects of the matter, it is proper that the matter should be heard by the Director, Consolidation, where the parties would have an opportunity to place their stands and their documents in support of their case. Since counsel of both the parties are present in Court they are directed to bring to the notice of the authority in question, the order of this Court remanding the case back to him. Both the parties should also be directed to co-operate with the Director who will hear the matter and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible.

In the result, the order dated 15.1.1991 is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Director, Consolidation, with a direction to produce this order before the Director, Consolidation within a period of two months on receipt of a copy of this order.