RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appellants in the present case are aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.12.2012 passed by learned Single Judge of this court in CWJC No. 4544/1992. By the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge has been pleased to set aside the revisional order dated 26.03.1992 passed by the Joint Director, Consolidation in Revision Case No. 169/1998 (Annexure-1 to Writ Application).

3. The grievance of the writ petitioners was that the Revisional Authority had interfered with the findings of facts which were settled by the order of the Consolidation Officer (Annexure-8 to the writ application) and appellate order (Annexure-9 to the writ application). The original writ petitioners were one Yogendra Singh (petitioner no.1) and the sons of Late Mathura Singh as also son and daughters of Late Bhuneshwar Singh. It is made clear that Yogendra Singh, Late Bhuneshwar Singh and Late Mathura Singh happened to be the three sons of Late Narsingh Narain Singh. On the other hand, the private respondents no. 5 & 6 who were the contesting respondents happened to be the two sons of Late Chhathu Yadav, one of the sons of one Bihari Gope.

4. It appears from the records that during the ongoing consolidation in village Kendua, P.S. Gurua in the district of Gaya under the provisions of Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), an objection under Section 10(2) was filed for the first time by respondent no. 5 & 6 of the writ petition against recording of name of the ancestor of the Writ petitioners in the draft documents in line with the revisional survey records which gave rise to case No. 4/1986. Thus, a dispute arose pertaining to C.S. Khata No. 18, C.S. Plot No. 84 corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 136 (0.86 acres), C.S. Plot No. 110 corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 146 (0.57 acres), C.S. Plot No. 47 corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 242 (0.12 acres), C.S. Plot No. 61 corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 251 (0.15 acres) and C.S. Plot No. 320 (1.27 acres) in all 2.97 acres of land.

5. The case of the objectors (respondent nos. 5 & 6 in the Writ) was that the disputed land was their ancestral property. According to them, the plot in question under Khata No. 18 was divided in several plots and those were initially recorded in the name of their ancestor’s name Bihari Gope son of Late Girdhari Mahto in old Survey Khatiyan and in Register-II also the name of Bihari Gope (grand father of respondent no. 5 & 6) was entered for which rent was fixed in his name. They relied upon photocopy of the old Khatiyan, rent receipt and copy of Raibandi Case No. 10/1921-22 in which these lands were shown in the share of the ancestor of these respondents. The respondents further claimed that the petitioners were neither raiyat nor their names were entered in Register-II. They are the heirs of the ex-landlord and they have no concern with the aforesaid Khata No. 18.

6. The writ petitioners contested the objection under Section 10(2) of the Act before Consolidation Officer. According to the petitioners the land in question were recorded in the name of one Faggu Gope in the Cadastral Survey Khatiyan. The said Faggu Gope was unable to pay land rent, therefore, he surrendered the land in favour of the ex-intermediaries. According to the petitioners, by the time Faggu Gope surrendered the land in favour of ex- intermediaries there was a collectorate partition amongst the ex-intermediaries, but inadvertently the land in question was shown in the name of one Bihari Gope in the collectorate partition. Because there was no basis for showing the name of Bihari Gope, the said Bihari Gope executed a Sada Wazidava in favour of the ex-intermediaries admitting therein that the same belonged to the ex-intermediaries. The petitioners claimed that since the value of the land was less than Rs. 100/, a Sada Wazidava was executed as it required no registration.

7. It is stated th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document