Compliance with court rules and procedures, validity and correctness of administrative orders under The Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956

When the matter has been taken up for consideration on merits, a counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent no. 5 is being filed by his counsel. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner raises an objection that a copy of the aforesaid counter-affidavit was served upon him today itself in the Court, which is in violation of the requirement of The Patna High Court Rules. Therefore, according to him, aforesaid counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.5 may be ignored/ rejected.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 5 does not dispute the factum of service of the copy of the aforesaid counter-affidavit upon the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner today itself.

3. The second proviso to Rule-6 of Chapter-XXI-C of The Patna High Court Rules mandates that in a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, an answer showing cause must be made by filing an affidavit and by serving a copy thereof with annexures, if any, upon the Advocate for the writ petitioner not later than twenty-four hours before the date fixed for hearing.

4. The present writ petition was filed way back on 18.02.2008 and by order dated 23.10.2008, notices were issued to the respondent no. 5 to 10 by a Bench of this Court. The respondent no. 5 entered appearance through his counsel way back on 19th December, 2008, yet counter-affidavit was not filed on his behalf. This matter was adjourned on several occasions on one ground or the other. The matter is coming on the Board for last several dates for its final disposal, yet counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent no. 5 has been filed today itself and a copy of which was not served upon the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as per requirement of The Patna High Court Rules, as referred to above.

5. In above view of the matter, counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 5 in the present proceeding shall not be taken into consideration and is hereby rejected.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Standing counsel-20 appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5 on merits of the case. However, none is appearing on behalf of the remaining private respondents, though notices have been validly served upon them.

7. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 18.12.2007 passed in Consolidation Revision Case No. 453 of 1986 by the respondent Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna, as contained in Annexure-6, whereby the aforesaid consolidation revision application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 35 of The Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 ( In short ‘Act, 1956’) has been dismissed by a reasoned and speaking order and the order passed by the appellate authority has been affirmed.

8. It is not in dispute that the claims/ objections raised on behalf of the respondent no. 5 under Section 10B of the Act, 1956 before the respondent Consolidation Officer, Kudra, Rohtas, giving rise to Case No. 329 of 1982, was finally rejected by order dated 18.12.1982, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The respondent no.5, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, preferred an appeal under Section 10(6) of the Act, 1956 before the Respondent Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rohtas, Sasaram, which gave rise to Appeal No. 419 of 1983-84. After hearing the parties including the present writ petitioner, the aforesaid appeal filed on behalf of the respondent no. 5 was finally allowed by an order dated 01.11.1985 (Annexure-2) and the claims raised on behalf of the respondent no.5 with respect to the lands in question as also his Shebaitship was accepted. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesai