CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.4149 OF 1988 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 1. RAM PRAKASH SHARMA 2. NARENDRA SHARMA, SONS OF SRI JADU BIR SHARMA 3. RABINDRA SHARMA @ PAPU, MINOR SON OF JADU BIR SHARMA UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF HIS FATHER. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE GAMHARIA, P.S. OBRA, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. ----------------------------------------------------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, GAYA, NAWADA & AURANGABAD 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, MAGADH RANGE, GAYA 4. THE CONSOLIDATION OFFICER, OBRA, DISTRICT AURANGABAD 5. SMT. NIRMALA DEVI, WIFE OF DEO NARAIN SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BELSAR, P.S. ARWAL, DISTRICT GAYA. 6(a) PRAMOD PANDEY 6(b) RAM SEWAN PANDEY 6(c) RAJ KUMAR PANDEY 6(d) BINOY PANDEY 6(e) SANJAY PANDEY, SONS OF LATE NAND KISHORE PANDEY 6(f) LAXMI DEVI, WIDOW OF LATE NAND KISHORE PANDEY 6(g) PARWATI DEVI, DAUGHTER OF JAGDISH PANDEY DIED WIFE OF LATE YOGESH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. DADAR, P.S. GOH, DISTRICT AURANGABAD 6(h) SIYA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE JAGDISH PANDEY, WIFE OF RAMJI SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BADARIGARH, P.S. KARPI, DISTRICT ARWAL. 6(i) RADHA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE JAGDISH PANDEY, WIFE OF SANT KUMAR SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. PAKARIYA (ODBADHAPUR), DISTRICT NAWADA ALL [6(a) TO 6(i)] LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NOS. 6 AND 7 8(a) SURAJ MANI DEVI, WIDOW OF LATE RAM PRASAD PANDEY 8(b) ARUN PANDEY 8(c) SATYENDRA PANDEY 8(d) JITENDRA PANDEY 8(e) BIKASH PANDEY, SONS OF LATE RAM PRASAD PANDEY 8(f) MINA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE RAM PRASAD PANDEY, WIFE OF SURENDRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. & P.S. KOCH, DISTRICT GAYA 8(g) RITA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE RAM PRASAD PANDEY, WIFE OF RAGHWENDRA SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KETARIYA, P.S. MANPUR, DISTRICT GAYA. 9(a) KALAWATI DEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE HARIDWAR PANDEY, WIFE OF JADUBIR SHARMA 9(b) GUNJAN SHARMA, SON OF JADUBIR SHARMA ALL RESPONDENT NOS. 6 TO 9 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GAMHARIA, P.S. OBRA, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. ----------------------------------------------------------- RESPONDENTS For The Petitioner :Mr. S.S. Dwevedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kamala Prasad Roy, Adv. For The Respondent No. 5 :Mr. Arun Kumar Ambastha, Adv. For heirs of respondent nos. 6 to 8 :Mr. Pushkar Narayan Sahi, Adv. Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, Adv. For the State :Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, S.C. 16 Mr. Rajeev Kumar, A.C. to S.C. 16 2 P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN S.A. Khan, J. The facts of this case need not be stated in view of the orders which this Court intends to pass. 2. The dispute is an old one pending since 1977-78 with respect to the creation of Chaks in the name of the petitioners and the respondents. Vide annexure-3 dated 27.10.1983 the Consolidation Officer allowed the case of the respondent no. 5. The petitioners moved in appeal. The appellate Court remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 27.10.1983 in Case No. 51 of 1977-78/241 of 1983. After the order of remand, the Consolidation Officer passed an order on 25.7.1984 in favour of the respondent no. 5 which has been challenged by filing a revision application under Section 35 of the Act before the Joint Director, Gaya. 3. On perusal of the order dated 5.6.1987 it would appear that the Joint Director has shirked from the duty of passing a speaking, reasoned and considered order. Merely stating that the lower Courts i.e. Consolidation Officer and Deputy Collector have decided in favour of respondent no. 5 or respondent nos. 6 to 8 is not good enough reason for dismissing the appeal. The revisional authority ought to have given reasons to support the case of one or the other party. 4. Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, learned counsel appearing 3 on behalf of respondent nos. 6 to 8 submits that a Title Suit numbered as Title Suit No. 80 of 1985 was filed by the petitioners for declaration that the Hukumnama on which the respondent nos. 5 to 8 stake their claim is not a valid document and that the petitioners have acquired title to the suit lands through a deed of gift executed by respondent no. 9. This suit was dismissed for default. 5. Counsel for respondent no. 9 is also present in Court and supports the case of the petitioners with respect to the deed of gift. 6. Considering all the facts the matter is remanded to the Director, Consolidation to hear the petitioners, respondent nos. 5 to 8 and respondent no. 9 and pass a reasoned order dealing with all aspects of the case. The parties appearing before this Court are obliged to participate and co-operate with the Director, Consolidation so that the matter can be disposed of within a period of six months on receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Patna High Court, The 29th of July, 2010 N.A.F.R./Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)