Letters Patent Appeal No.1077 OF 1995 with 1076 of 1995 Against the judgment and order dated 8.8.1995 passed by a Single Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C.No.3192 of 1995 and C.W.J.C.No. 3191 of 1995. ------- SMT.CHANDRASHAN DEVI-----------------------------(Appellant) Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS---------------------------(Respondents) LPA No.1076 oF 1995 RAJESHWAR PRASAD SINGH--------------------------(Appellant) Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS--------------------------(Respondents) For the Appellants :- M/S. Shrinandan Prasad Singh, Ashok Kumar No.1 For the State :- Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, S.C.16 with Mr. J.K.Roy For the Private Respondents:- M/S.Ashok Kumar Keshri and Rajeev Ranjan Kumar ------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. REKHA KUMARI Shiva Kirti Singh & Rekha Kumari,J.J., Heard the parties. 2. Both these Letters Patent Appeals have been heard together because most of the points of fact and law are common and writ petition was filed by appellants against a common order of learned Joint Director of Consolidation dated 26.08.1994 contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petitions. Both the writ petitions have been dismissed by Writ Court by identical orders dated 8.8.1995. 3. Before the Writ Court the order of the Joint Director of Consolidation was challenged mainly on the ground that all the documents relied upon by the writ petitioners had not been considered by the learned Joint Director while deciding the matter against them. Some of the findings given by the Joint Director were also challenged to be erroneous. The Writ Court after going through the impugned order of the Joint Director and other orders under challenge came to a conclusion that all the documents had been considered and the findings of fact had 2 led to the decision against the writ petitioners and the same required no interference by the Writ Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants made pointed attack against the order of the learned Joint Director mainly on the ground that the learned Joint Director as revisional authority committed error in disregarding the legal consequences of an admitted fact that the two sale deeds dated 22.3.1973 executed in favour of Ram Lagan Singh, uncle of the private respondents had been subject matter of an order by Collector of the district passed under section 32 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He showed from various orders of consolidation authorities that it had been brought to their notice that the Collector of the district had passed an under section 32 of the Act in a case bearing No. 7/74 and had imposed fine on the executant. On the basis of such order of the District Collector, the writ petitioners claimed that the sale deeds executed in favour of the private respondents lost all force and hence the land owner and the executant of the sale deed Most. Mona Kunwar became competent to subsequently execute a deed of gift in favour of appellant Chandrashan Devi on 23.10.1978 and she was also competent to execute a Will in favour of the other appellant. It was further submitted on behalf of the appellants that once the only basis of the title and possession of the private respondents i.e. two sale deeds dated 22.3.1973 were declared void under section 32 of the Act, they lost all claim over the land and the subsequent Gift/Will in favour of the writ petitioners should have been respected by the consolidation authorities and their names should have been recorded in the record of rights. 5. On behalf of private respondents it has been submitted that the order of the Joint Director as 3 well as the order of the Writ Court suffers from no illegality and requires no interference. It has further been submitted that the Consolidation Court as well as the Revisional Court of Joint Director has considered the relevant documents in proper perspective. In the counter affidavit filed in L.P.A.No. 1076 of 1995 the private respondents have annexed three documents as Annexures A, B and C, which were produced before the consolidation authorities also. It has been submitted that although a gift deed was obtained by writ petitioner Chandrashan Devi from Most. Mona Kunwar on 23.10.1978, on the same date by a registered deed of Ladabi (deed of relinquishment) executed on same date i.e. 23.10.1978 Smt. Chandrashan Devi accepted the claim of the private respondents on the lands covered by the two sale deeds dated 22.3.1973.It has further been submitted that in paragraphs 5 to 7 of the counter affidavit filed long back these respondents have made a categorical averment that they had no knowledge of the alleged Case No.7/74 in which the Collector of District Vaishali had purportedly passed an order under section 32 of the Act in respect of sale deeds dated 22.3.1973. It has further been pleaded by the respondents in those paragraphs of the counter affidavit that they had no notice in the said proceeding and that in respect of another sale deed executed later on 1.5.1973 in respect of some lands of the same village, the Collector, Vaishali by an order dated 22.3.1982 (Annexure C) held that since the publication of statement of principles under section 10(1) of the Act was not made till the year,1974, hence, no order against the executant of such sale deed could be passed under section 32 of the Act. On the basis of annexure C , it has been submitted that there was no question of a legal and valid order under section 32 being passed against the private respondents in respect of sale deeds executed on 22.3.1973 and this fact has been 4 correctly noticed and appreciated by the learned Joint Director of Consolidation while allowing the revision application in favour of the private respondents. 6. On going through the relevant materials and on appreciating the rival contentions, this Court finds that in absence of any denial to the averments made in paragraphs 5 to 7 of the counter affidavit noticed above, it must be held that there was no valid order by Collector of the District, Vaishali under section 32 of the Act in respect of the two sale deeds dated 22.3.1973 and on proper consideration of all other relevant facts and documents, the Joint Director of Consolidation had come to such conclusions and findings, which require no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Since, there is no denial of deed of relinquishment contained in Annexure –A, the findings arrived by the authorities on that basis also suffer from no illegality so as to warrant any interference. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in these two appeals. They are dismissed accordingly. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J) ( Rekha Kumari,J) Patna High Court, The 18th April,2008 DKS (N.A.F.R.)