Back
2007 Supreme(Pat) 1217
PATNA HIGH COURT
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.
Ram Sagar Choudhary
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10638 of 2000 ;
Decided On : JULY 26, 2007
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the consolidation authorities do not have the jurisdiction to cancel a deed of gift without it being cancelled by a competent civil court, and the principle of res judicata applies to maintain finality of previous decisions.
Headnote:
Deed of Gift - Land Dispute - Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, Sec. 10(2) - The court discussed the legal provisions and interpretations of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, and the jurisdiction of consolidation authorities to cancel a deed of gift without it being cancelled by a competent civil court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashing of orders passed by respondents in a land dispute. The dispute arose from a deed of gift executed in 1964, mutation of land records, and subsequent legal proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the orders passed by the consolidation authorities were not maintainable as the matter had already been decided in favor of the petitioners' father in 1975, and the consolidation authorities did not have the jurisdiction to cancel the deed of gift without it being cancelled by a competent civil court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the orders passed by the consolidation authorities, the jurisdiction to cancel the deed of gift, and the application of res judicata.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the orders passed by the consolidation authorities were not maintainable due to the principle of res judicata and that the consolidation authorities did not have the jurisdiction to cancel the deed of gift without it being cancelled by a competent civil court.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ application and set aside the impugned orders dated 5.5.2000, 22.10.1984, and 20.1.1984.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. No one appears for the private respondents although notices were duly served upon them and they have also filed Vakalatnama. Learned J.C. to AAG-4 appears for the State-respondents.
2. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 5.5.2000, 22.10.1984 and 20.1.1984 passed by respondent nos. 2 to 4 by which all the aforesaid respondents have decided the matters against the petitioners.
3. The facts giving rise to the present writ application are that the admitted Raiyat of the land in question, namely, Dukhan Singh predecessor in interest of respondent nos. 5, 7 and 8 executed a registered deed of gift in favour of Bilas Choudhary, father of these petitioners on 4.11.1964. It is stated that thereafter the father of the petitioner was in continuous cultivating possession over the disputed land and after his death the petitioners are coming in possession over the same and cultivating it. Further, by order dated 30.8.1971 the name of the peitioners father was mutated in the revenue records of the State on the basis of the said deed of gift. It is stated that they have been paying rent to the State of Bihar since then and canal parcha as well as water rent in respect of the disputed land have also been prepared in the name of the father of the petitioners. Around the same time during the revisional survey despite the said developments the R.S. Khatian was prepared in the name of Dukhan Singh. In Consolidation Case No. 9/1972-73 the father of the petitioners challenged the said entry and ultimately by order dated 19.10.1975 passed under Sec. 10(2) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, the matter was decided in favour of the petitioners father after due notice to the other side and the khatian entry was directed to be rectified. It is stated that respondent nos. 5 to 8 filed an appeal against the said order but the same was dismissed and no further revision was preferred by them and thus the order has become final and could not be reopened by the Consolidation authorities. With respect to the said statement made in para-12 of the writ application the only answer given in para-12 of the counter affidavit in reply is that it requires no comments by the answering respondents and thus the said fact stands admitted. Thereafter, it appears that around the same time Dukhan Singh filed Title Suit No. 467/1975 in which he sought a declaration that the deed of gift dated 4.11.1964 is void and not binding on him. In the said suit he also filed an application for being permitted to sue in forma pauperis which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 6/1976. After his death a substitution petition was filed by his legal heirs, i.e. the private respondents. Ultimately the application to sue in forma pauperis was dismissed by order dated 12.2.1979 (Annexure-7) holding that Miscellaneous case was not maintainable. On the said date later on it was ordered that in view of the orders passed in Misc. Case the plaint is also rejected as there is no plaintiff.
4. After lapse of 9 years from the earlier order passed in Consolidation. Case No. 9/1972-73. respondent nos. 5 to 8 filed Consolidation Case No. 7686/1983-84 without notice to the petitioners and the impugned order dated 20.1.1984 was passed. When the petitioners learnt about the said order, they filed appeal being Case No. 1357/83-84 which was dismissed in default on 19.10.1984 and the restoration application filed on the same date was also dismissed on 20.10.1984. Subsequently, the petitioners filed Revision Case No. 3167/1989 before the Director, Consolidation but the same was also dismissed upon which the petitioners along with respondent no. 9 filed CWJC No. 371 of 1987 which was allowed by this Court and the matter was remanded back to the Director, Consolidation for consideration afresh on merit. Thereafter, the Director, Consolidation has passed the impugned order dated 5.5.2000 dismissing the revisio
