JUDGMENT

Venkataswami, J.-This appeal by Special Leave is preferred against the judgment and order of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. 915/1982 dated January 21, 1983.

2. Before the High Court, the first respondent herein was the petitioner and the appellants were the contesting respondents. The 5th respondent herein, who has since died pending this appeal, was the father of the appellants (hereinafter referred as the 5th respondent for the sake of convenience).

3. The first respondent has successfully challenged before the High Court by filing the above mentioned C.W.J.C. No.915/1982 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, an order of the Consolidation Officer, Dumraon dated 18.10.1978 confirmed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities concerning an extent of 40 bighas of land sold to him by the 5th respondent as guardian of the minor sons under a registered sale deed dated May 6, 1959 for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/-. Hence the present appeal.

4. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are the following :-

The 5th respondent filed a title suit No. 75/1951 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Arrah. Pending suit the appellants herein who were then minors were allowed to be added as co-plaintiffs represented by next friend/guardian ad litem Shri Kanhaiya Singh. That suit was in respect of Dumraon Raj of which the 5th respondent, his brothers and their predecessors were the Maharajas. That suit ended in a compromise and in that compromise the appellants were exclusively allowed 58 acres of land besides a sum of Rs. 90,000/- in cash. After the suit ended in compromise, the next friend/guardian ad litem of the minors was discharged by an order dated February 22,1957. Thereafter, the 5th respondent as natural guardian of the minors managed the affairs-personal as well as the property of the minors. By way of abundant caution, he also made an application in the very same Title suit to appoint him as guardian on 3.5.1960. Before that it appeared that the 5th respondent, as pointed out earlier, sold the suit lands to the first respondent herein on 6.5.1959. After the purchase of the Suit lands, the first respondent has constructed boundary walls and buildings and mutation was also duly carried out and the final Record of Rights was published on March 30, 1970 in favour of the first respondent with respect to suit lands. It is also on record that the first appellant herein moved the Civil Court in the title suit to declare that he has attained majority on 29.7.66 and sought the permission of the Court to deal with the Treasury deposits and saving certificates. That prayer was allowed by the Civil Court. It is also on record that the appellants accepting the alienation of the suit lands by their father in favour of the first respondent requested the Collector of Bhojpur at Arrah to recover the loan advanced against the suit lands from the first respondent who has undertaken to discharge the same.

5. Some time in the year 1972, a notification under Section 3 of Bihar Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter called "the Act") was published and in the Statements published under Section 9A read with Section 10 of the Act, the first respondent s name was shown as the owner. Notwithstanding the fact that sub-section 2 of Section 10 provides for preferring objections by interested persons within 45 days, appellants did not take any step to dispute the correctness of the entries in the Records of Rights. It must be noted that Section 10A bars any person after the expiry of the period of 45 days from raising any dispute in that regard. Thereafter a Draft Scheme was also published under Section 12 of the Act reiterating the statement published under Section 10. Here again 30 days time was given under the Act for filing objections and no objection was preferred by the appellants within the said time. As there was no objections to the statement as well as to the Draft S