Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J.
Nand Kishore Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 995 of 1987 ;
Decided On : APRIL 16, 1998
CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS - OPERATION IN URBAN AREAS - JURISDICTION OF CONSOLIDATION AUTHORITIES - REVISION OF ORDERS UNDER SECTION 32 OF THE ACT - JURISDICTION OF DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 3, 4(B), 10, 10(1), 10(2), 10-A, 10-B, 26-A, 32 AND 35 OF THE BIHAR CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS AND PREVENTION OF FRAGMENTATION ACT, 1956 - BIHAR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1981 - SECTION 76.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the operation of consolidation proceedings in two villages, Dighi Kalan and Dighi Khurd, within the local limits of the Patna Regional Development Authority (PRDA). They contended that the villages had been urbanized and were no longer suitable for consolidation. The petitioners also challenged the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities to proceed with the consolidation operation in an area that had been brought under the purview of the PRDA.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the operation of consolidation proceedings in an area starts when a notification under Section 3 of the Act is issued. The publication of the register of lands and statement of principles under Section 10(1) of the Act becomes final after 45 days, subject to objections under Section 10(2) of the Act. The subsequent inclusion of the village within the limits of the PRDA does not curtail the power vested with the consolidation authority or amount to the automatic closure of the consolidation proceeding. The court also held that the Director of Consolidation has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal or revision over an order passed by the Collector of the district under Section 32 of the Act, which imposes a fine for violating the provisions of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the operation of consolidation proceedings can start and proceed in two villages, namely, Dighi Kalan and Dighi Khurd, in the district of Vaishali, which are situated within the local limits of the PRDA? 2. Whether the operation of consolidation proceedings can be applicable to an area that falls under the PRDA/Urban Area? 3. Whether the Director of Consolidation has jurisdiction to entertain a revision-application against an order passed by the Collector under Section 32 of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The operation of consolidation proceedings in an area starts when a notification under Section 3 of the Act is issued. The publication of the register of lands and statement of principles under Section 10(1) of the Act becomes final after 45 days, subject to objections under Section 10(2) of the Act. The subsequent inclusion of the village within the limits of the PRDA does not curtail the power vested with the consolidation authority or amount to the automatic closure of the consolidation proceeding. 2. The operation of consolidation proceedings can be applicable to an area that falls under the PRDA/Urban Area, unless there is a specific provision in the PRDA Act or the Consolidation Act excluding such areas from the operation of consolidation proceedings. 3. The Director of Consolidation has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal or revision over an order passed by the Collector of the district under Section 32 of the Act, which imposes a fine for violating the provisions of the Act.
Final Decision: C.W.J.C. No. 995/87 is dismissed and C.W.J.C. Nos. 976/88, 362/88 and 8457/93 are allowed, with the observations aforesaid. There will be no order as to costs.
S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J.
1. Alt these cases relates to consolidation proceedings initiated in two village, "Dighi Kalan" and "Dighi Khurd" within Hajipur Sadar P.S. in the district of Vaishali. In C.W.J.C. No. 995/87, this Court while admitting the writ petition on 3-4-87 stayed the operation of consolidation proceeding in the area in question. In view of the aforesaid interim order, certain orders were passed in different consolidation cases which were already pending before the authorities, giving rise to the filing of the other writ petitions. For the said reason all cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. C.W.J.C. No. 995/87.
2. The petitioners, who are resident of village Dighi Kalan and Dighi Khurd within the district of Vaishali challenged the order dated 3-3-87 passed by Joint Director of Consolidation (Muzaffarpur) Patna in Revision case No. 3137/86 whereby and where under the stay earlier granted relating to operation of consolidation proceeding with respect to village "Dighi Kalan" (Thana No. 105) and "Dighi Khurd" (Thana No. 156) was vacated. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to exclude the aforesaid two village from the operation of consolidation proceeding till the pendency of the aforesaid revision-application.
3. The questions involved in these writ petitions are (a) whether operation of consolidation proceeding can start and proceed in two villages namely. Dighi Kalan and Dighi Khurd in the district of Vaishali or not they being situated within the local limits of Patna Regional Development Authority (P.R.D.A. for short) and (b) whether operation of consolidation proceeding can be applicable to an area which falls under Regional Development Authority/Urban Area ?
4. The case of the petitioners is that with respect to the village in question, operation of consolidation proceeding started when notification under Sec. 3 of Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956(hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued on 26-11-70, whereinafter one of the petitioners filed information petition on 6-8-83 (or knowing the position. The consolidation officer, Hajipur informed that the register of land was prepared and published between 1-10-73 and 1-11-73 but subsequently, by letter No. 1746 dated 13/24-6-81 the Director of Consolidation stayed the consolidation operation for one year which was extended for six months by another memo No. 2638 dated 10-12-82. The village aforesaid, namely, Dighi Kalan and Dighi Khurd had already been urbanised with urban look containing various projects and officer. The villages were notified for Urban Development Scheme by State Government Notification dated 9-1-78 (Annexure-2) extending the limits of P.R.D.A. and the two village in question along with others were brought under its purview. It was also stated that from perusal of Map of the village, it is apparent that entire area of the village in question having become part of Hajipur town cannot be subject-matter of consolidation as it includes important projects, education Institutions and Basti which are enough to exclude these two villages from the operation of consolidation proceeding. There is one consolidation officer posted at Hajipur in the village Dighi Kalan and the consolidation officer, Deshri and Bidupur come from a distance of 25 and 15 Kms. as incharge of the other village Dighi Khurd. The petitioners approached the learned consolidation officer of the village in question with prayer to exclude the village from the consolidation operation, who replied that only records of right and interest will be corrected.
5. According to the Counsel for the petitioners, publication of R.S. Khatian having took place on 11-6-69, the question of further survey by consolidation authorities does not arise. The village in question having already been urbanised with a urban look and the value of the land on road side having gone high, such question of
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
