CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.8987 OF 1989

In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

of India.

…

1(a) Vijay Kr. Thakur,

1(b) Ravindra Singh,

1 © Binay Kr. Thakur,

1(d) Bhrgu Thakur,

1(e) Bipan Thakur, all sons of Late Smt. Chandrakala Devi, village Bandih, PS

Tajpur, District Samastipur – Petitioners.

Vs.

1. The State of Bihar,

2. The Joint Director Consolidation, Purnea, Head Quarters at Patna.

3. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Samastipur.

4. The Consolidation Officer, Tajpur, Morwa, Dist. Samastipur.

5. (a) Jogmaya Devi, wife of Late Ram Prit Thakur,

6. (b) Parbati Devi, wife of Ram Shankar Thakur, daughter-in-law of Late Ram

Prit Thakur.

7. © Bachchi Devi, daughter of Late Ram Prit Thakur – Respondents.

…

For the petitioners : Mr. Shyam Sundar Shyam, Advocate.

For the private respondents: Mr. Kesho Shrivastava, Senior Advocate and Mr.

Bhubneshwar Prasad, Advocate.

For The State Ms. Juhi Kumari, A. C. to S.C. III.

P R E S E N T

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN

S.A. Khan, J.

The petitioners seek to challenge the order of the Joint

Director Consolidation passed on 31.8.1989 rejecting their claim. The

impugned order has set aside the order of the Additional Collector

Incharge, Flying Squad Consolidation passed in Consolidation Case

No. 248/1978.

2. The facts of the case are that Chhedi Thakur had two

sons, namely, Laxmi Narain Thakur and Ram Prit Thakur (deceased

respondent no.5). Laxmi Narain Thakur died leaving behind his widow

Subhago Devi who died in 1966. The original petitioner Chandrakala

2

Devi (now substituted by her heirs) is the daughter of Subhago Devi.

3. The case of the petitioners is that Laxmi Narain Thakur

died in the year 1938. Before his death in 1938 there was a partition

between Laxmi Narain Thakur and Ram Prit Thakur. Due to illness of

Laxmi Narain Thakur, Ram Prit Thakur looked after the properties on

behalf of his brother and taking advantage of the illness of Laxmi

Narain Thakur, Ram Prit Thakur got his name entered in Register >D?.

It is the case of the petitioners that in the recent revisional survey which

took place much before 1969, the name of Subhago Devi and Ram Prit

Thakur were jointly entered in the records. Ram Prit Thakur filed an

application under section 103 of the Bihar Tenancy Act to get the

records corrected stating therein that Subhago Devi had died issueless

and as such the name of Subhago Devi should be deleted. The order

dated 26.4.1969 is in favour of the respondents which is contained in

Annexure >G? to the counter affidavit. It is, thus, the case of the

petitioners that Subhago Devi by virtue of Hindu Womens Succession

Act, 1956 had become the absolute owner of the property belonging to

her husband along with her daughter.

4. The case of the respondents, on the other hand, is that

Laxmi Narain Thakur and Ram Prit Thakur were in joint possession of

the lands in question. Laxmi Narain Thakur died in the year 1932 and

as such his widow did not inherit any part of her husband?s share and

was only entitled to maintenance. It has further been stated that the

respondent got his name recorded after making correction by virtue of a

proceeding under section 103 of the Bihar Tenancy Act and has been

3

paying rent and Chowkidari receipts have been granted by the State of

Bihar.

5. The original petitioner Chandrakala Devi filed an

application under section 10(6) of the Consolidation Act before the

Consolidation Officer which was registered as Case No. 8/1977. By

order, dated 10.12.1977 the Consolidation Officer allowed the prayer of

the petitioner and directed that the names of Chandrakala Devi and

Ram Prit Thakur should be recorded with respect to the lands in

question. Against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, the

respondent filed an appeal which was dismissed on 3.5.1978. The

respondent