CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 8901 OF 1991 ***** ( In the matter of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India ) ****** MANGAL MAHTO, SON OF LATE LAXAMI MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KARANI, POST OFFICE DHOBAHA BAZAR, POLICE STATION ARRAH MUFASSIL, DISTRICT BHOJPUR ………………………..…………………………………………….……...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, ARRAH, BHOJPUR 4. BASUDEO MAHTO, SON OF LATE SRI KISHUN MAHTO 5. DIN DAYAL MAHTO, SON OF LATE SRI NIRA MAHTO 4 AND 5 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KARANI, POST OFFICE DHOBAHA BAZAR, POLICE STATION ARRAH MUFASSIL, DISTRICT BHOJPUR …………………………………………………..…………………….RESPONDENTS ******************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN O R D E R Sheema Ali Khan, J. This matter arises out of a Consolidation Proceeding with respect to 3 decimals of land appertaining to C.S. Plot No. 1075 & 1076, C.S. Khata No. 229 equivalent to R.S. Plot No. 1795, R.S. Khata No. 681. The case of the petitioner is that he had purchased 3 decimals of land from Din Dayal Mahto, respondent no. 5. After the purchase, he had got his name mutated vide Mutation Case No. 11 of 1976-77 and the same was entered in Register-II. During the consolidation proceedings, the petitioner applied for a 2 chak to be opened in his name, which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer. Respondent No. 4, Basudeo Mahto, filed Appeal No. 70 of 1984-85 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bhojpur against the order of the Consolidation Officer, which was allowed on 10.07.1986. The petitioner challenged the appellate order by filing Revision Case No. 2357 of 1986 before the Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna which was disposed of on 25.07.1991. The case of the respondents is that by an oral exchange in the year 1970, he had come into possession of R.S. Plot No. 1795 and in exchange has given R.S. Plot No. 2689 of R.S. Khata No. 220 to respondent no. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid exchange, respondents submit that his name was shown in the revisional survey with a comment “in possession of Basudeo Mahto”. On the basis of this entry in the revisional survey, the respondents claimed that they had title over the lands and have also perfected their rights by virtue of adverse possession. On consideration of the orders of the Consolidation Authorities, this Court finds that the Additional Member, Board of Revenue has based his findings on the revisional survey ignoring the 3 registered sale deed and the claims and counter claims of the parties. The order of the Revisional Authority records that on local inspection, it was found that “the disputed plot is parti”. It has also been recorded that no documentary evidence was placed before the Revisional Authority. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed a list of documents including the registered sale deed, as also the documents showing that the lands have been mutated in his favour, whereas the argument on behalf of the respondents is that the sale deed is ab initio void in view of the fact that no permission was taken for executing the sale deed under Section 32 of the Bihar Consolidation Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. On considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds that the order impugned passed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority could not have ignored, the registered sale deed which is a document of title. The entry of the name of the respondent in the revisional survey records does not indicate the title of the parties. At the most, it may indicate that the party concerned is in possession of the lands vis-à-vis the revisional entry. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said 4 or held that the petitioner is in possession of the lands in question, in view of the two pieces of documentary evidence. At this juncture, the Court can only hold that the registered sale deed would take precedence over an oral exchange. Therefore, I find that the orders impugned have to be quashed. The aggrieved parties always have the liberty to move before the appropriate Court by filing a civil suit. In the result, this application is allowed. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. ) PATNA HIGH COURT DATED, THE 16th NOVEMBER, 2010 N.A.F.R./ANAND