CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.2625 OF 1991 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. DHIRENDRA PD YADAV, SON OF LATE SRI KANGALI YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARODHA, P.S. SHAMBHUGANJ, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, BHAGALPUR. 4. CONSOLIDATION OFFICER, SHAMBHUGANJ, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. 5. ASSISTANT CONSOLIDATION OFFICER, SHAMBHUGANJ, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR 6. DR. NARENDRA PRASAD YADAV, SON OF LATE SRI JHARILAL YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MATHURA, P.S. TARAPUR, DISTRICT MONGHYR. 7. SMT. SAROJANI DEVI, WIFE OF DHIRENDRA PRASAD YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARODHA, P.S. SHAMBHUGANJ, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. 8. SMT. DAYAMANTI DEVI, WIFE OF SRI YOGENDRA PRASAD SINGH 9. MOSTT. ANODA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE SRI ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH 10.SMT. KAUSHALYA DEVI, WIFE OF SHRAWAN KUMAR SINGH, RESPONDENT NOS. 8 TO 10, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHYAMPUR, P.S. HAVELI KHARAGPUR, DISTRICT MONGHYR. ---- RESPONDENTS WITH CWJC No.4690 of 1992 DR.NARENDRA PRASAD YADAV, SON OF LATE SRI JHARILAL YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MATHURA, P.S. TARAPUR, DISTRICT MONGHYR ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, BHAGALPUR. 4. CONSOLIDATION OFFICER, SHAMBHUGANJ, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. 5. ASSISTANT CONSOLIDATION OFFICER, SHAMBHUGANJ, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR 6. DHIRENDRA PRASAD YADAV, SON OF LATE SRI KANGALI YADAV 7. (i) DILIP KUMAR YADAV 7.(ii) BABALOO KUMAR YADAV 7.(iii)CHARAN KUMAR YADAV, SON OF DHIRENDRA PD. YADAV AND SAROJANI DEVI 7.(iv) MAMTA KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF DHIRENDRA PD. YADAV AND SAROJANI DEVI 7.(v) ASHA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF DHIRENDRA PD. YADAV AND SAROJANI DEVI 7.(vi) BABY DEVI, DAUGHTER OF DHIRENDRA PD. YADAV AND SAROJANI DEVI 7.(vii)NILAM DEVI, DAUGHTER OF DHIRENDRA PD. YADAV AND SAROJANI DEVI ---- RESPONDENTS In CWJC No. 2625 of 1991 For The Petitioner : None For The Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Mahesh Pd. II, Advocate Mr. Rewati Kant Raman, Advocate Mr. Gopal Sharan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rana Ishwar Chandra, A.C. to G.P. 13 In CWJC No. 4690 of 1992 For The Petitioner :Mr. MAHESH PRASAD -2 For The Private Respondent :None For the State :Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, A.C. to S.C. 3 2 P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN S.A. Khan, J. These two writ applications are against the common order passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation contained in Annexure-7 dated 26.2.1991 by which he has ordered that the Chak should be created with respect to plot no. 485, Khata No. 69 appertaining to village Narayanpur, Anchal Shambhuganj, District Bhagalpur in the name of Narendra Prasad Yadav and Sarojani Devi. 2. The lands aforesaid belonged to one Sidheshwari Prasad Singh. The daughters of Sidheshwari Prasad Singh, Respondent Nos. 8, 9 and 10 sold the land by a registered sale deed dated 18.3.1976. The dispute is with respect to a sale deed executed by respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 wherein it is mentioned that the land has been sold in favour of the petitioner of CWJC No. 4690 of 92 Dr. Narendra Prasad Yadav and the wife, namely, Sarojani Devi petitioner of CWJC No. 2625 of 1991, Dhirendra Prasad Yadav. Dhirendra Prasad Yadav has been shown to be the Bataidaar of the entire land in the sale deed. 3. The petitioner's case is that Dhirendra Prasad Yadav is not the Bataidaar and is claiming as a Bataidaar for the first time is unbelievable in view of the fact that he has stated that he has been cultivating the land for the past 25 years. It is submitted by the petitioner that if his claim is to be believed, then it would mean that he 3 was cultivating the disputed land since the age of 10, which is an absurd story. Dr. Narendra Prasad Yadav also asserts that he was a close friend of Dhirendra Prasad Yadav and instructed him to prepare the documents for execution of the sale deed which has become the subject matter of the present dispute. Dhirendra Prasad Yadav taking advantage of the trust has included the name of his wife in the sale deed. 4. The case of Dhirendra Prasad Yadav on the other hand is that his wife Sarojani Devi had purchased the disputed land in her name and the Benami name of Narendra Prasad Yadav. Further he claims to be in possession as a Bataidar of the entire land. 5. The Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of Narendra Prasad Yadav that the Chak should be recorded in his name. Similarly the Assistant Consolidation Officer also rejected the plea of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the orders of the Consolidation Officer and Assistant Consolidation Officer (who incidently did not have the power to pass the order in the appeal), the petitioner Narendra Prasad Yadav filed revision before the Joint Director, Consolidation. The order contained in annexure-8 deals with the cases of the parties and the Joint Director has rightly held that Dhirendra Prasad Yadav cannot be declared to be a Bataidaar in the consolidation proceeding and he has to get a proper adjudication from the competent authority. The Joint Director also held that he cannot adjudicate with respect to the validity or otherwise of the sale deed and has thus ordered that the land should be recorded in the name of 4 the petitioner Narendra Prasad Yadav and the wife of Dhirendra Prasad Yadav i.e. Sarojani Devi. Both the parties are aggrieved by the order and have thus filed these two writ applications. 6. On considering the pleadings of the parties and the documents on record, this Court has come to the conclusion that the order of the Joint Director is legally tenable. He has rightly held that he cannot hold that the petitioner Dhirendra Prasad Yadav is the Bataidaar of the entire land and has rightly directed that person interested in being declared a Bataidaar to move the authority under Section 48E of Bihar Tenancy Act. The Joint Director has also correctly come to the conclusion that the validity or otherwise of the sale deed cannot be adjudicated by the consolidation Courts. It would have been proper for the parties who challenge the sale deed and who have filed present cases to file a title suit for correction/setting aside the sale deed with respect to the lands described above. 7. In the result, I do not find merit in both the writ applications. The writ applications are dismissed. The parties may take recourse to the legal remedies available to them. Patna High Court, 15th of July, 2010 N.A.F.R./Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)