A claim for co-tenancy rights in land is barred by Sec. 10-A of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, if no objection was filed under Sec. 10(2) of the Act.

J.N.Dubey, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.11.1991 of the respondent No. 2, the Joint Director of Consolidation, Gaya.

2. It appears that the petitioners filed objections under Sec. 10(2) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (for short "the Act) challenging the correctness of the statement of principles prepared by the consolidation authorities under Sec. 9-A, which were dismissed by the respondent No. 4, the consolidation officer (Central Range), Imanganj on 28.7.1986. They filed appeals which were also dismissed by the respondents No. 3, the Deputy Director of Consolidation (Central Range) Gaya on 31.3.1987, thereafter they filed revisions to the respondent No. 3 the Joint Director of Consolidation, Gaya.

3. The respondent No. 16, Sahdeo and the respondent No. 17, Jagat Singh, who had neither filed objection under Sec. 10(2) of the Act nor appeal, filed revisions to the respondent No. 2, claiming co-tenancy in the land in dispute along with the petitioners.

4. The respondent No. 16 also filed application for impleadment as party in the revision filed by the petitioners. The petitioners contested the impleadment application on the ground that the respondent No. 16, not having filed objection under Sec. 10(2) of the Act of appeal, was not legally entitled to be impleaded in the pending revision. The respondent No. 2, after hearing the argument of the learned Counsel for the parties at length and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, rejected the impleadment application by a detailed order on 6.7.1990 with the observation that the claim of the respondent No. 16 the family was joint and that he was defrauded by Mann was disproved from his own admission and further, that in absence of any objection under Sec. 10(2) of the Act, he was not legally entitled at the stage of revision. The order dated 67.1990 of the respondent No. 2, not having been challenged has become final.

5. The respondent No. 2 heard the revision of the petitioners and allowed them by a common order on 28.11.1991. However, he also declared the respondent Nos. 16 and 17 as co-tenants of the land in dispute along with the petitioners with equal share.

6. Heard the Counsel for the-parties and perused the record,

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent Nos. 16 and 17 did not file any objection under Sec. 10(2) and as such, their claim was barred by Sec. 10-A of the Act. He further contended that in view of the rejection of the impleadment application of the respondent No. 16, his claim was also barred by the principles of res judicata. According to him, the respondent No. 2 himself having rejected the impleadment application of the respondent No. 16 with the observation that the claim of the respondent No. 16 that the family was joint and that he was defrauded by Mann was disproved from his own admission and further, that in absence of any objection under Section 10(2) of the Act, he was not legally entitled to claim any share in the property in dispute directly at the stage of revision, was not legally justified in declaring them as co-tenants Of the land in dispute alongwith the petitioners subsequently. He also contended that the finding of the respondent No. 2 that the family of the petitioners and respondents Nos. 16 and 17 was joint and that they were cotangents of the land in dispute with equal shares, is based on no evidence and is clearly perverse, According to him, the respondent Nos. 16 and 17 did not lead any evidence in support of their claim at any point of time and the respondent No. 2, has declared them as co-tenants of the land in dispute merely on the basis of conjecture and surmises.

8. I find substance in the argument of the learned Counsel. In order to appreciate the argument of the learned Counsel, Sec. 10-A of the Act is quoted below:

No question is respect of any entry made in he map of registers prepared unde