The consolidation authorities under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 are deemed to be courts of competent jurisdiction by legal fiction, but they are not full-fledged courts in the real sense of the term. They are not required to follow the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act in their proceedings, but they must follow the substance of the procedure to ensure fairness and justice.

B. L. Vaclav, J.

1. Ours being an agricultural country, hence in respect of the legislation and litigation pertaining to agriculture, efforts must be made, to make articulate, the inarticulate premise but only to the extent which follows from necessary compulsion of the situations and the Constitutional position. The litigation pertaining to agriculture has to be carefully dealt with The Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi, used to say that India lives in villages and if some body wants to see India he has to go to the villages. We are faced with baffling questions of interpretation of Sections 37-A and 37-B of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of fragmentation Act, 1956 (compendiously "the Act" ).

2. This Letters Patent Appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters patent of the Patna High Court Rules is directed against the judgment dated 23.1.1995 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in [cw. JC. No.10592 of 1993] by which the learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India filed by Must. Hasibunnisa Bibi (respondent no.6 in this appeal) against the present appellant.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the consolidation proceedings commenced in respect of R. S. Khata Nos.137 and 209 situate in village manpur, P. S. Chainpur. District Rohtas, the former khata being ancestral whereas the latter was acquired by purchase. The genealogical table is given below :-

4. After death of a common ancestor i. e. Diwan Niyaz Mohammad khan, his three sons separated from each other in cultivation and mess. The relevant R. S. Khata No.209 (in dispute) was in the share of one diwan Quadir Khan and R. S. Khata No.137 came to him as ancestrat property. The other two sons of Diwan Niyaz Mohammad Khan also got other lands in their share. Diwan Quadir Khan made an oral gift in favour of his second wife Batulan Bibi in respect of R. S. Khata No.209, who accepted the same and came in peaceful possession. This R. S. Khata No.209 became exclusive property of Batulan Bibi; whereas R. S. Khata No.137 remained a joint tenancy. Revisional Survey Khatian was prepared in the name of Batulan Bibi for her gifted property of Khata No.209, as provided under Sec.9 of the Act. She became ex-landlord after en-forcement of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. In this R. S. Khata No.209 an area of R. S. Plot No.2889 was wrongly recorded, for which an objection was filed by Diwan Junaid Khan under Sec.10 (2) of the Act which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer on the 20th of April, 1990 and the name of Most. Nasibunnisa Bibi (respondent no 6) was expunged (Annexure 5 ).

5. An appeal was filed by Most. Hasibunnisa Bibi (respondent no.6)under Sec.10 (6) of the Act before the Assistant Director of Consolidation, rohtas which was dismissed on 22.7.1993 (vide Annexure 6) and the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 20.4.1990 (Annexure 5) was maintained. Thereafter a Revision Petition was filed by Most. Hasibunnisa Bibi under section 35 of the Act before the Joint Director of Consolidation, which was also dismissed by an order dated 24.9.1993 (Annexur 7 ).

6. Being aggrieved by the said orders, Most. Hasibunnisa Bibi filed the [c. W. J. C. No.10592 of 1993] in this Court whith a prayer to quash the impugned orders dated 24.9.1993, 22.7.1993 and 20.4.1990 (Annexures 7, 6 and 5 to the writ petition), which was allowed by the learned single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 23.1 1995, relying upon the case of Ram Sigashan pathak V/s. K. P. Sinha, [air 1989 Pat 39]. Against the judgment of the learned single Judge the present L P. A. has been preferred. . [ blj (2)-28

7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the findings of the learned single Judge are based on surmises and conjectures, inasmuch as, both oral and documentary evidence were led by the parties and there is statement of fact to that effect in the judgment of the Consolidation officer, Assista