The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of full disclosure and the implications of time limitations under relevant acts in land dispute cases.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for respondent no. 5

2. The land in dispute relates to revisional Plot No. 206 area 18 decimals and Revisional Survey Plot no. 201 Area 4 decimals situated at village Rajkhand P.S. Goroul District Vaishali. The case of the petitioner is that he is maternal great grand son of one Munar Baitha son of Bhaju Baitha. Bhaju Baitha has one daughter Etwaria and one son Monar Baitha. Monar Baitha died issueless leaving behind his only sister Etwaria. Petitioner is the maternal grand son of Monar. Monar Baitha was alive at the time of revisional survey operation which took place in the year 1970 and his name was entered in the revisional survey khatian as a tenant. After his death petitioner came in possession of the land. During consolidation proceeding he filed a petition under Section 12 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of his right, title and interest over the land which was decided in his favour on 26.3.1986 and his name was recorded in the register of the land as well as in chak register. He remained in peaceful cultivating possession of the land. Subsequently the respondent no. 5 filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Consolidation being case no. 214 of 1988 which was dismissed by a speaking order dated 21.12.1989 affirming the order of the Consolidation Officer as the respondent no. 5 failed to make out a case for recording his name either during revisional survey operation or during consolidation proceeding. Against the order passed by the appellate authority the respondent no. 5 filed revision before the Director which was numbered as Revision Case No. 126 of 1990 which was allowed by order dated 3.10.1994 by Principal Consolidation Training Institute, Patna. The petitioner is aggrieved by this order and has challenged this order in the writ application.

3. The case of the respondent no. 5 is that the land which is underdispute belonged to one Monar Baitha who had executed a registered mortgage deed on 29.7.1931 in favour of one Mohi Gir. Monar Baitha had authorised the mortgagee Mohi Gir to pay the rent which was actually paid by the mortgagee. Subsequently on 29.6.1936 the mortgagee Mohi Gir assigned the said mortgage through a registered Bechinama in favour of Damodar Prasad, the late father of respondent no. 5. Monir Baitha died issueless in the year 1940. The father of respondent no. 5 remained in possession of the land by virtue of the said registered Bechinama and upon death of mortgagee Monar Baitha his possession and of title became absolute. In the year 1960-61 the revisional survey started in the area at that time the father of respondent no. 5 died and the respondent no. 5 was minor at that time. In this circumstance no objection could be filed and the name of Monar Baitha was entered in the revisional survey khatian. At the time of revisional survey the petitioner who claims himself to be heir of Monar Baitha he did not take any step to get his name substituted in place of Monar Baitha. The fact is that he is not the legal heir of Monar Baitha who died issueless without leaving any surviving legal heirs. The claim of the petitioner Bharat Baitha that he is the grand son of the sister of Monar Baitha is false.

4. The respondent no. 5 filed an application for mutation of his name on the basis of registered bechinama and the mortgage deeds. The case was registered as Mutation Case No. 1269 of 1981, At that very time the petitioner Bharath Baitha also filed a petition claiming himself to be the heir of Late Monar Baitha. He filed an application under section 12 of the Money Lenders Act, 1974 for redemption the mortgaged land. This application was numbered as Mortgage case no. 3/91. Both the cases were decided by the Circle Officer by a common order dated 15.4.1981. He dismissed the claim of the petitioner under section 12 of the Money Lenders Act, 1974 o