S.K. KATRIAR & KISHORE KR. MANDAL, JJ.-Respondent no. 5 of CWJC No. 4088 of 1986 has preferred this appeal in terms of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court, and is aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.9.97, whereby the writ petition at the instance of respondent nos. 7 to 9 herein was allowed, the order of revisional authority has been set aside, and that of the appellate authority restored, on the ground that respondent no. 5 had not taken prior permission in terms of Section 5 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the writ petition.

2. A brief summary of facts is essential for the disposal of this appeal. Respondent No.5 (the appellant herein) had purchased 91 decimals of land bearing Khesra No. 3669, appertaining to Khata No. 962, situate at village Adauri, district Sitamarhi, by registered deed of absolute sale executed on 18.8.79, and registered on 21.8.79, from late Most. Annapurna Devi (wife of late Abhay Nath Jha). Respondent No.8 (Manoj Kumar Singh, Petitioner No.2), and respondent no. 9 (Subodh Kumar Singh, petitioner no. 3), both major sons of respondent no. 7 (Haribans Prasad Singh, petitioner no. 1) purchased the same plot of land from Jibnath Jha and Surajkala Ojhain, agnates of the said late Abhay Nath Jha, by registered deed of absolute sale on 31.8.79. In other words, respondent No.5 purchased the same land ten days earlier than the petitioners. According to respondent no. 5, he purchased it from the recorded tenants and the petitioners purchased the same plot of land from the agnates of the recorded tenants. Respondent no. 5 filed an application before the learned Consolidation Officer, Piparahi, for correction of the record of rights in terms of Section 10(2) of the Act. The same was allowed by order dated 26.11.80 (Annexure-2A), and the requisite correction in the survey records as per his sale deed of 21.8.79 was ordered for. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner no. 1 had filed appeal under Section 10(6) of the Act which was allowed by order dated 5.12.83 (Annexure-4), whereby the learned Assistant Director of Consolidation, Sitamarhi, held that the sale deed of respondent no. 5 was without prior permission of the Collector of the district in terms of Section 5 of the Act and was, therefore, void.

3. In the meanwhile, petitioner no. 1 had filed an application in terms of Section 32 of the Act before the learned Collector of the district of Sitamarhi seeking cancellation of the sale deed of respondent no. 5, on the ground that they have not taken prior 1ermission of the Collector of the district in terms of Section 5 of the Act. The Collector of the district rejected the application by his order dated 29.5.84 (Annexure-3), and held that in view of the nature of the land, permission of the Collector was not needed. It is relevant to state that none challenges this order and has attained finality. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 5.12.83 (Annexure-4), respondent no. 5 preferred revision application in terms of Section 35 of the Act which has been allowed by the learned Joint Director of Consolidation (Headquarters) by order dated 15.7.86 (Annexure-A), whereby he has held that permission in terms of Section 5 of the Act was not needed, and has set aside the order dt. 5.12.83 (Annexure-4). Aggrieved by the revisional order, the later purchasers preferred the writ petition which has been allowed by the impugned order. Hence this appeal at the instance of respondent no. 5, the prior purchaser.

4. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for respondent no. 5 (the appellant herein) submits that none of the petitioners ever raised their claim for correction of entry in their favour before the consolidation authorities. Therefore, their claim/objection is barred in terms of Section 10A read with Section 12A of the Act. He next submi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document