IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12279 of 2000 DAMODAR PATHAK Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS Counsel for the Petitioner :- Sri Kamal Nayan Choubey Sr. Advocate Sri Ambuj Nayan Choubey Advocate Counsel for the Respondent :- Sri Shashi Sekhar Dvivedi Sr. Advocate Sri Ravishankar Dvivedi Advocate ---------- 07 07.07.2008 The father of the petitioner allegedly to have received certain lands as gift from a lady by registered deed of gift dated 07.02.1952. He applied for mutation of his name in the land records, which was rejected. His appeal was unsuccessful before the Mutation Authorities, being Mutation Appeal no. 8 of 1958-59. He did not prefer any revision application and let the matter rest thus. He then filed Title Suit No. 187 of 1960 for declaration of title and quashing of the appellate order of the mutation proceedings, which was passed on 08.07.1960 and for injunction. The suit was dismissed. The first appeal was also dismissed. When the matter was pending at the second appellate stage notification in terms of Section 3 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of 2 Fragmentation Act, 1956 was issued in respect of the area in which the said land was situated. This was brought to the notice to the second appellate Court and in terms of Section 4 C of the said Consolidation Act, it was held that the second appeal would abate. Consequent to abatement of the second appeal, petitioner then moved the Consolidation Authority, who dismissed petitioner’s application which was made in terms of Section 10 B of the Consolidation Act. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Circle Officer and the appeal was allowed. But, on revision preferred by the private respondent the appellate order was set aside and order of the Consolidation Officer being the first Officer under the Consolidation Act was restored. The petitioner then preferred C.W.J.C. No. 808 of 1993 and the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 11.06.1995. This Court was pleased to set aside the order of the Consolidation Authorities and directed it to decide the matter afresh as the Consolidation Authorities had relied on the judgments of the Civil Court which proceedings as indicated above had abated. When the matter 3 reached the Consolidation Officer on remand by this Court he expressed his inability to pass any order holding that he had become functus officio in view of the notification issued by the State Government, in terms of Section 4 A of the Consolidation Act rescinding the notification earlier issued in terms of Section 3 of the Act. The effect of the said notification was that the area in which the disputed land is situated was taken out of consolidation operations and the Act ceased to operate. Petitioner being aggrieved again moved this Court by C.W.J.C. No. 6297 of 1996. Noticing the fact that now the Consolidation Act had no operation this Court disposed of the writ petition by directing that any party aggrieved may move appropriate Civil Court for redressal of its grievances, meaning thereby, that if the petitioner had to confirm his title to the land in question, then, it was for him to file appropriate proceedings. Petitioner was very much aware at that moment of time that he had already instituted a title suit which he had lost and appeal against the decree was also 4 dismissed and second appeal was held to be abated. The consequence ordinarily would have meant that once a notification in terms of Section 4 A was issued under the Consolidation Act rescinding the notification issued under Section 3 all proceedings that had hitherto abated would revive. When this Court in the second writ proceedings directed the aggrieved parties to move competent Civil Court for redressal of their grievances, it was open to the petitioner to move the second Appellate Court for revival of the second appeal and take it to the logical consequence. He took no such steps. From the aforesaid facts, it would be clear that first petitioner moved for mutation and once the appellate order in the mutation proceedings went against him he did not challenge the same before the revisional forum but preferred to file a suit. The second appeal from which suit abated. He then again moved Mutation Authorities where he had already lost on the earlier occasion and then got the orders of the second round before Mutation Authorities set aside by this Court, in the first writ 5 petition and thereafter in the second petition got an order to move appropriate Civil Court but did nothing to revive the abated civil proceedings. Now he again for the third time petitioner moved before Mutation Authorities, who had twice earlier rejected his claim and this time got a favorable order. This order was reversed in appeal preferred by the private respondent, which is Annexure-4 to the present writ petition and the appellate order against the petitioner was affirmed by the Mutation Revisional Authority, which is Annexure-5. Sri Kamal Nayan Choubey, learned senior counsel appears in support of the writ petition and Sri Shashi Shekhar Dvivedi, learned senior counsel appears for the private respondent. Both have been heard in detail and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of on the facts as found above. In my view, once the petitioner had moved the Mutation Authorities on the first occasion and lost, those orders so far as Mutation Authorities and the petitioner is concerned attained finality. Petitioner had the 6 option of challenging it in revision. Which he did not do, instead he filed a civil suit which abated. Moving Mutation Authorities afresh, in view of this Court was not permissible. Principle of constructive res judicata would apply because on earlier occasion the orders of the Mutation Authorities had attained finality, which orders were not varied by any Court or authority. It was an order by competent authority as between the same parties in relation to the same dispute. If it is permitted then the effect would be that there would be conflicting orders of competent authorities under the same jurisdiction which is not a consequence that can be permitted to happen. Matters must be allowed to attain finality. Therefore, whatever may be the orders now passed by the Mutation Authorities i.e. Annexure-4 or Annexure-5 or the original order from which these proceedings were taken up were orders passed in a proceeding wrongly instituted. If that be so then the writ petition must fail more so as this Court had given liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate civil proceedings. He chose not to get the 7 second appeal revived instead went to the Mutation Authorities for the third time when the matter had already been concluded by them on the earliest occasion. This third approach to the Mutation Authorities was not open to him. Thus, the relief as prayed for by the writ petitioner cannot be granted and the writ petition is fit to be dismissed as is dismissed as such. All interim orders consequently stand vacated. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)