ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY, J.:–In this intra-Court Appeal the appellants have assailed the judgment and order dated 16.7.2015 passed by the Writ Court in CWJC No. 9511 of 1995.

2. The brief facts for adjudication of the present Letters Patent Appeal are set out herein below:

CWJC No. 9511 of 1995 was filed by the respondent No. 5 against the decision of the Deputy Director, Consolidation (Headquarters), Bihar, Patna dated 30th September, 1995 in Revision Case No. 645 of 1989 and the order dated 19.9.1988 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rohtas at Sasaram in Appeal No. 77 of 1985-86.

3. From the pleadings of the parties, it appears that during the pendency of the consolidation proceedings in the village in question three petitions were filed, two by one Ram Bharat Dubey, respondent no. 5 in the instant appeal, being Case Nos. 54/1984-85 and 55/1985-85 and one by Bhagwan Dubey against Jagdish Dubey and others, being case No. 70 of 1985-85. In case No. 54/1985-86, Ram Bharat Dubey, respondent No. 5 herein claimed that he has acquired right, title and interest pursuant to gift deed No. 2039 dated 4.5.1977 and as such the extent of property acquired by Ram Bharat Dubey under the gift deed should be carved out in his name and he should be allotted Chak. Case No. 55 of 1984-85 was filed by said Ram Bharat Dubey for allotment of Takhta according to the schedule prepared on the basis of partition of the property between the parties. The third case, namely, case No. 70/1984-85 was filed by Bhagwan Dubey claiming acquisition of certain properties in his personal capacity and as such the land acquired through sale deed no. 1084 of plot No. 156 should be carved out as his self acquired property and the land acquired vide sale deed no. 1084 should be allotted either in the name of the applicant Bhagwan Dubey or the purchaser, Bhagwan Dubey and Rajendra Dubey. All the three cases were initially heard by the Assistant Consolidation Officer who referred the same to the Consolidation Officer, Bhagwanpur for final decision in purported exercise of jurisdiction under Section 10(4) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinasfter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Consolidation Officer after hearing the parties accepted the claim of Ram Bharat Dubey and decided that the record may be corrected in the light of the gift deed no. 2039 dated 4.5.1977. The Consolidation Officer noted that the gift was a registered gift and on the basis of the said gift deed the mutation was made in favour of the claimant. He noted that even at the time of mutation pursuant to the gift deed no one had raised any objection. The Consolidation Officer also noted that the donor has obtained permission through Permission Case No. 359 of 1974 and also recorded the finding that there was oral partition between the heirs of Guput Dubey in the year 1966 and as such the donor Bhagwan Dubey was competent to execute the deed of gift to the extent of his share. The Consolidation Officer also accepted the case of the respondent No. 5, Ram Bharat Dubey about the partition for the purpose of allocating the land as per the schedule enclosed with the Case No. 55 of 1984-85. The Consolidation Officer after considering the entire aspect of the matter and the documents produced by the parties in support of their respective claims and the objection of the opposite parties held out that the claimant has been able to establish that the land in question was acquired as their self acquired property. The Consolidation Officer finally on 27.3.1985 passed the following orders.

vr% mijksDr nkf[ky dkxtkrksa] nksuksa i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa dks lquus ds Ik’pkr eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igq¡prk gw¡ fd oknh dk nkok lR; izrhr gksrk gS rFkk izfroknhx.k vius nkok dks lkfcr djusa esa vlQy jgsa gSaA oknh dk vkosnu i= Lohd`r fd;k tkrk gS rFkk izfro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document