Back
2019 Supreme(Pat) 346
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.
Ram Ladu Roy – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary and Others – Respondents
CWJC No. 7647 of 2011
Decided On : 03-04-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, Mr. Sachchida Nand Singh.
For the Respondents: Mr. Arbind Kumar, Mr. Shrinandan Pd. Singh, Mr. Murari Narayan Choudhary.
Headnote:
Bihar Consolidation of Holdings Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 – Sections 3 and 4A – Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 14 – Cancellation of notification – Status of family as joint or otherwise is a very crucial aspect for determination of their respective rights – By operation of Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act, a reversion get abolished, upon Women’s estate being enlarged to full ownership where limited owner possessed the property – Order of appellate authority under Consolidation Act suffers from vice of complete non-application of mind, inasmuch as there is no discussion as to why grounds set up by respondent no.6 were not acceptable and findings recorded by Consolidation Officer deserved to be affirmed – Director, Consolidation, instead of re-appreciating evidence himself, should have remanded the matter back to appellate forum for reconsideration – Revisional Court ought to have interfered with appellate Court’s order on the ground of non-application of mind and instead of re-appreciating evidence, ought to have remanded the matter back to appellate court for just adjudication – Impugned order set aside and matter remanded back to appellate authority under Consolidation Act to pass order on appeal of respondent No.6 afresh. (Paras 12 to 14)
JUDGMENT :
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.
1. Facts of the case have become messy not because of the complexity of the issue involved but because of two parallel proceedings, one taken up under Bihar Consolidation of Holdings Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the other before a Civil Court by way of suit, both involving the same dispute. The decision of the State Government to cancel notification issued under Section 3 of the Act, exercising power under Section 4A of the Act and subsequent interference by this Court in a public interest litigation in case of Bihar Rajya Adhivekta Sangh and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, 1995 (2) PLJR 880 with the said decision of cancellation rendered the situation messier. Ere, I take note of those all facts I must refer to at the outset a genealogical table over which there is no dispute to the extent it relates to the petitioner and contesting Respondent No. 6, which is as under:-
|
| Raghunandan Rai |
|
| Chandradeep Rai (Issueless) | Raj Keshwar Rai | Ram Janam Rai |
|
| Musafir Rai | Lakshminia Devi (Respondent No. 6) |
| Ram Ladu Rai (Petitioner) |
|
2. On close examination of the pleadings on record, it is easily discernible that main dispute between the parties revolves around two questions of facts; to wit:
(i) Whether Ram Janam Rai, father of respondent No. 6 Lakshminia Devi died before coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
(ii) Whether Ram Janam Rai died in jointness with his brother Ram Keshwar Rai.
3. It is in the background of the numerous developments, which have taken place in the process of adjudication on the aforesaid disputes till passing of the impugned order dated 02.02.2011, by the Director of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision Case No. 3491 of 1988 and 845 of 1979 and 3435 of 1988 under Section 35 of the Act that such developments need to be essentially taken note of before disposal of the present case. Be it mentioned here itself that by the impugned order dated 02.02.2011, learned Director, Consolidation has held that Ram Janam Rai was separate in all respect from Musafir Rai on the date of his death and that he died prior to 1954. The finding arrived at by the Director, Consolidation is against the concurrent findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer in Consolidation Case No. 242 of 1977-78 and 325 of 1977-78 and the order passed by the Assistant Director, Consolidation, Ara in Consolidation Appeal No. 29 of 1981-82 dated 29.10.1988.
4. I have heard Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Arbind Kumar, AC to GA-9, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar as well as Mr. Shrinandan Pd. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of private respondent No. 6.
5. Respondent No. 6, herein, had filed a title suit registered as Title Suit No. 91 of 1975 in the Court of learned Sub-Judge-I, Ara, against entry of the name of Musafir Rai in the entire records of right concerning such plots of her father. She pleaded that her father, Ram Janam Rai died in the year 1947-48 and before his death partition in the family had already taken place. Since Chandradeep Rai died issueless respondent No. 6 was entitled for half share in the property of Raghunandan Rai, she being the only issue of Ram Janam Rai. I must notice here that there is dispute in respect of the genealogical table also on the point that father of the petitioner had a daughter also, namely, Lalita Devi, whose sons (respondent Nos. 7 and 9) and daughter (respondent No. 8) are there on record. The dispute between the petitioner and respondent no. 6 has nothing to do with the said aspect of the dispute. After initiation of the consolidation proceeding, the respondent no. 6 filed an objection under sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act disputing the nature of entry in the
