Judgement :

(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) THE matter involved in this case pertains to the proceedings held under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). S. 37-A and 37-B of the Act provide as under: "37-A. Authorities under the Act to be deemed courts of competent jurisdiction.-Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Director of Consolidation, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the Assistant Director of Consolidation, the Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall be deemed to be courts of competent jurisdiction while hearing objections or appeals or deciding disputes under this Act. 37-B. Authorities under this Act to have powers and privileges as are vested in a civil court in certain matters.-(1 The Director of Consolidation, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the Assistant Director of Consolidation, the Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall have all such powers, rights and privileges while hearing any matter in dispute as are vested in a civil court in respect of the following matters, namely,- (a) enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation or otherwise and issuing a commission to examine witnesses; (b) compelling any person for the production of any document; (c) punishing the persons guilty of contempt. (2 A summons signed by such officer may be substituted for and shall be equivalent to any formal process capable of being issued in any action by a civil court for enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of any document."

(3) RELYING upon these provisions and also on an earlier decision of the High court in Ram Sigashan Pathak v. K.P. Sinha the learned Single Judge of the High court before whom the decision of the Consolidation Authorities was challenged by the respondent, allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer, Mahua, District Vaishali, as it was found that the evidence had not been brought on record in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act and the Civil Procedure Code. The letters patent appeal filed thereafter was dismissed as the High court was not inclined to interfere in the matter where a case has been remanded. It, however, directed that the case would be heard by the revisional authority, namely, the Director of Consolidation. It is against this decision that the present appeal has been filed.

(4) OUR attention has been drawn to the judgments passed by the Consolidation Authorities at various levels in which the evidence adduced by the parties has been noticed. It is also pointed out that the decision of the Single Judge in Ram Sigashan case which was relied upon by the High court, had already been overruled by the division bench of the Patna High court itself in Junaid Khan v. State of Bihar and, therefore, there was no occasion to issue a direction to the revisional authority, to which the case was remanded for disposal in accordance with the decision in Ram Sigashan case.

(5) THE High court has not touched the merits of the case as it was of the opinion that the evidence was not brought on record in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act and the Civil Procedure Code which had to be followed as the Consolidation Authorities were regular courts in view of the provisions contained in S. 37-A and 37-B of the Act. Since the High court had itself overruled the decision in Ram Sigashan case there was no occasion for the Single Judge or the division bench to place reliance on that decision. While considering the scope of the provisions of S. 37-A and 37-B of the Act, the division bench of the Patna High Court presided over by the then chief justice G.B.PATTANAIK (as his Lordship then was), observed as under: "24. In fact Section 37-B of the Act qualifies the scope of Section 37-A. This Section 37-A of the Act