Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Sachchidanand Jha and M.Y.Eqbal JJ.
Pratap Chand Pandey
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2322 of 1984 ;
Decided On : JULY 01, 1996
BIHAR CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS & PREVENTION OF FRAGMENTATION ACT, 1956 - SECTION 35, 52A(2) - DEFINITION OF RAIYAT - OWNERSHIP OF GAIRMAJURA LAND - ACQUISITION OF RAIYAT STATUS - JURISDICTION OF REVISIONAL AUTHORITY - INTERPRETATION OF SURVEY RECORDS - ADVERSE POSSESSION - RIGHT TO HOLD LAND FOR CULTIVATION - LEGALITY OF CONSOLIDATION OFFICER'S ORDER - VALIDITY OF REVISIONAL AUTHORITY'S ORDER - DISMISSAL OF WRIT APPLICATION - NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner claimed ownership of certain lands, including submerged portions that re-appeared after a river changed course. The Consolidation Officer recorded the lands in the petitioner's name, but the Deputy Director and Joint Director of Consolidation set aside this order. The petitioner challenged these orders in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to establish that he had acquired the right to hold the land as a raiyat or that his predecessors-in-interest were holding the land as raiyats. The court also found that the Consolidation Officer was not justified in passing the order in favor of the petitioner for recording his name in the Register.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had acquired the right to hold the land as a raiyat or his predecessors-in-interest were holding the land as raiyats? 2. Whether the Consolidation Officer was justified in passing the order in favor of the petitioner for recording his name in the Register? 3. Whether the Joint Director of Consolidation had jurisdiction to set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of "Raiyat" under Section 2(14) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 requires that the person has acquired a right to hold the land for the purpose of cultivation or their predecessors-in-interest have acquired such a right. 2. The petitioner failed to establish that he or his predecessors-in-interest had acquired the right to hold the land as raiyats. 3. The Consolidation Officer was not justified in passing the order in favor of the petitioner for recording his name in the Register. 4. Section 35 of the Act empowers the revisional authority to call for and examine the record of any case or proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the regularity of the proceeding or the correctness, legality, or propriety of any order passed by a subordinate authority.
Final Decision: The writ application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
M.Y.Eqbal, J.
1. In this writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing of the order dated 31.12.1983 passed in Revision Case No. 477 of 1980 by the Joint Director of Consolidation, Bihar (Respondent No. 4) contained in Annexure 3, whereby he has affirmed the order dated 7.3.1980 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Purnia (Respondent No. 3) in Misc, Petition No. 3 of 1979-80 contained in Annexure 2. By the said order dated 7.3.1980, respondent No. 3 has set aside the order dated 26.12.1978 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Purnia, purported to have been passed under Sec. 10(2) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act").
2. The facts of this case is in a very narrow compass.
3. The petitioner is alleged to have acquired 19.31 acres of raiyati holding pertaining to C.S. Khesra Nos. 172, 173, 176 and 177 of C.S. Khata No. 9 of Mauza Pariharpur within the Baisi Police Station in the district of Purnia by virtue of a registered sale-dead as also by auction purchase. Although the details of the persons from whom these plots were purchases have not been mentioned in the writ application, in paragraph 39 whereof it is stated that the land were purchased through different sale deeds in between 1943 and 1955. It was also alleged that the raiyati interest in Khata No. 4 of plot No. 202/230 having an area of 0.411/2 acre was acquired through auction sale.
4. The petitioner further alleged that, after said acquisition, he came in possession of the said lands on payment of rent to the ex-landlord and then to the State. According to the petitioner, that river Praman used to flow contiguous south of plot Nos. 172, 173, 175, 176 and 187. Subsequently, the river changed its course in such a manner that all the plots aforementioned were intersected by the river leaving portions of the intersected plots at both banks of the river clearly identifiable and submerging the middle portion.
5. It is admitted in paragraph 10 of the writ application that the revisional survey map would show that the submerged middle portion of the said whole plots were identified during the course of revisional survey and were recorded in the name of the State of Bihar.
6. It is also alleged that, after the revisional survey, which was finalised in 1958, the aforesaid submerged middle portions of the said plots re-appeared as the river changed its course again and become one with the intersected portions being their middle portion. The petitioner, thereafter, resumed cultivation and continuously he paid rent to the State of Bihar. According to him, as the middle submerged portions had re-appeared after the revisional survey and, in 1972 when the consolidation proceedings were undertaken in the area, the petitioner filed a petition before the Consolidation Officer to record his name in the Register. The Consolidation Officer visited the plot and he, on being satisfied that the portions, which were submerged during the revisional survey, had re-appeared and were being cultivated by the petitioner, passed an order on 21.8/976 in Case No. 17 of 1976 for recording the lands in the name of the petitioner. The said order is Annexure-1 to the writ application.
7. The petitioner further tried to make out a case that the order of the Consolidation Officer aforementioned had been rightly passed as the petitioner had become entitled to take possession and hold the lands as owner in accordance with the Bangal Alluvion and Diluvium Regulation, 1825. It is said that when the draft chak scheme was prepared, the aforesaid plots in question were merged into two chaks which were allotted in the name of the petitioner bearing chak No. 90, having an area of 1.33 acres and chak No. 98, having an area of 0.52 acre.
8. It is further alleged by the petitioner that, when the Khatian was distributed to the raiyat only then become to know that the plots in dispute did not (i
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
