The effectiveness of resolving disputed factual claims in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the requirement of joining necessary parties in such proceedings.

BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned AC to GP-12 appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to 5. However, none appears on behalf of the private respondents despite issuance of notice to them by order dated 25.09.2013 and again by the order dated 12.10.2015.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 17.01.2008 passed in Consolidation Revision Case No. 16 of 2001 by the respondent Joint Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur, as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, whereby the aforesaid revision application filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 35 of The Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (In short ‘Consolidation Act’) has been dismissed and the order dated 02.03.2001 (Annexure-1) passed by the appellate authority has been affirmed. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the appellate order dated 02.03.2001 passed in Consolidation Appeal No. 486 of 1982 by the respondent Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur in exercise of his powers under Section 10(6) of the Consolidation Act, whereby the aforesaid appeal filed on behalf of the private respondents or their predecessor has been allowed by a reasoned and speaking order, and the order dated 10.11.1978 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Kurhani in Consolidation Case No. 599 of 1977 has been reversed and set aside.

3. The disputes in the present proceeding relate with respect to parcels of land bearing plot no. 3033 area 13 decimals, plot no. 3036 area 24 decimals and plot no. 3069 area 41 decimals, which have been carved out from old khesra no. 2227 appertaining to old khata no. 36, total area being 1 acre 2 decimals.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the lands in question was earlier recorded in the cadastral survey record in the name of one Chaturi Mahto and the petitioners are the descendants of aforesaid Chaturi Mahto. He further submitted that in the consolidation proceeding the lands in question was recorded in the name of one Samir Sah son of Dilip Kumar Sahu (not impleaded as a party respondent in the present proceeding). Therefore, Objection Case No. 599 of 1977 was filed on behalf of the petitioners, which was finally allowed by order dated 10.11.1978. According to him, the appellate authority without considering the matter in its proper perspective has reversed and set aside the aforesaid order dated 10.11.1978 by the impugned appellate order dated 02.03.2001 (Annexure-1) and directed for recording the name of the private respondents with respect to the lands in question. He next contended that the revisional authority has also not considered the case of the petitioners in its proper perspective and has dismissed the revision case filed on their behalf by the impugned revisional order dated 17.01.2008 (Annexure-2). According to him, both, the appellate order and the revisional order, as contained in Annexure-1 and 2, are fit to be set aside and the original order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 10.11.1978 is fit to be affirmed.

5. Per contra, the learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the official respondents, submits that the claims of the petitioners with respect to the lands in question have been rejected by the appellate authority as also the revisional authority by considering the case of the parties at great length. He further submitted that before passing the order dated 10.11.1978 by the Consolidation Officer, Kurhani, (District Muzaffarpur) in favour of the petitioners, which has been brought on record as Annexure-16 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners, opportunity of hearing was not given to the private respondents, and in that case only one Samir Sah was impleaded as opposite party, but aforesaid Samir Sah has not been impleaded as party respondent in the present proceeding. Therefore, according to him, the aforesaid orde