SHEEMA ALI KHAN, J.

1. Two questions that have arisen in this case are whether the sale deed dated 04.05.1967 executed by Sri Ram Pandey, uncle of respondents 5 to 7 is a void document or a voidable document? The second question is whether the Joint Director, Consolidation (Gaya) could have looked into the sale deed and interpreted it in favour of one or the other party?

2. The facts are that Jai Ram Pandey became the owner of the property through a deed of gift, executed by the grandmother of Jai Ram Pandey on 11.07.1953. Jai Ram Pandey subsequently disappeared and remained traceless.The respondents 5 to 7 were minor at the time of disappearance of their father. The father of the petitioners was the purchaser of the lands in question by virtue of the sale deed executed on 04.05.1967 by Sri Ram Pandey, the brother of Jai Ram Pandey, on his own behalf and on behalf of the minor sons of Jai Ram Pandey, respondents 5 to 7.

3. The case set up on behalf of the petitioners is that, Sri Ram Pandey got a deed of gift executed in favour of his elder brother, namely, Jai Ram Pandey, however the property was meant to be jointly enjoyed by Jai Ram Pandey and Sri Ram Pandey. It is, therefore, said that due to the legal necessity of the family, Sri Ram Pandey executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioners fathers, namely, Raj Nandan Pandey and Hari Narain Pandey.

4. The respondents, on the other hand, claim that their uncle Sri Ram Pandey was not their natural guardian and he did not have the authority to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioners father. It is further stated that in fact they never came to know about the execution of the sale deed/and have remained in possession of the vended lands, paying rent to the State of Bihar right up till 1991.

5. The petitioners state that during the revisional survey, they got their names mutated in the records of right. No objection was filed on behalf of the petitioners at the time of the revisional survey. Later, when the consolidation proceedings started in the village, the petitioners father got his name included in the register of lands prepared under Section 9 and 9 (1) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondents did not file any objection under Section 10 (2) of the Act. Thereafter, the draft statement was prepared under Section 11 of the Act and objections were invited under Section 12 (2) of the Act, no steps were taken by anyone i.e. the respondents to file an objection.The respondents, for the first time, filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer under Section 12 (2) of the Act, after a great delay in the year 1980, which was disposed of in favour of the petitioners father on 23.08.1989. The order has been directly challenged by the respondents by filing a revision under Section 35 of the Act on 03.02.1989. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order of the Joint Director, Consolidation has challenged the order in this writ application.

6. In order to decide or comment upon the validity of the order of the Joint Director, Consolidation, this Court finds it necessary to analyze the recjtals in the sale deed. The following facts emerge on reading the sale deed.

(a) Sri Ram Pandey claims that he is the co-sharer and has executed the sale deed as the lands were in joint possession of the two brothers.

(b) The document has been executed for an alleged legal necessity.

(c) The document has been executed by Sri Ram Pandey on his own behalf and on behalf of the respondents 5 to 7, who were minors at that time

(d) The recitals of the sale deed also indicate that Jai Ram Pandey had disappeared some four years earlier to the execution of the sale deed.

7. The argument on behalf of the petitioners is that the Joint Director could not have adjudicated and held that the sale deed is a void document or that Sri Ram Pandey did not have the authority to execute the sale deed on behalf of