IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11779 of 2006 1. Shakuntala Gupta wife of Mayadhar Gupta, resident of Mohalla- Raj Kumar Ganj, P.S. –L.N.M.U. District- Darbhanga, 2. Shipra Chourasia wife of Sri Bhakat Amitav, resident of Fakhira Bazar, P.S.- Darbhanga Town, District- Darbhanga… …..Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, 2. Registrar, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga, 3. Assistant Settlement Officer, Darbhanga.. …..Respondents ………… For the Petitioners : Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Utsav Kr. A.C to S.C. 10 For the University : Dr. K.D. Singh, 6 15.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State and the respondent no. 2. Despite indulgence granted no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2. This matter is being disposed of at this stage upon the consent of the parties. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 30.9.2004 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer, Darbhanga in Objection Case No. 135 of 1997, 2 whereby and whereunder the concerned respondent has allowed the objection filed on behalf of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga ( hereinafter referred to as “the University”) and directed for deletion of the name of the petitioners from the record of rights with respect to survey plot nos. 52 and 54 and enter the name of the University. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 claim to have purchased the land of an area of 3500 sq. feet of Revisional Survey Plot No. 52, Khata no. 79, Khesra No. 1/36181 and an area of 4200 sq. feet of Revisional Survey Plot No. 54, Khata No. 79, of the same old Khesra respectively from the Director, Shri Buddikar Jha, Darbhanga Dairy Farm Private Limited vide registered sale deed dated 31.8.1988 and 10.9.1988 respectively. The petitioners got their names mutated in Anchal Records and started paying rents to the State of Bihar and it is claimed that they are coming in possession thereof. Respondent no. 2 instituted Title Suit No. 58 of 1988 against the vendor of the petitioners, i.e., Darbhanga Diary Farm Private Ltd. for execution of sale deed of 2 bigha 5 katha 16 3 dhur 83 dhurki of lands in its favour that also included the purchased lands of the petitioners. The petitioner no. 1 was allowed to intervene as intervenor – defendant no. 6 in the aforesaid title suit. The title suit was dismissed by the Munisf 1st , Darbhanga vide judgment and decree dated 31.5.1996. A copy of which has been brought on record by the petitioners as Annexure 7. Thereafter, it is claimed that the title appeal was filed against the aforesaid judgment by the respondent no. 2 which was pending at the time of filing of this writ application but now it has been dismissed. A copy of the judgment dated 23.2.2007 passed in Title Appeal No. 37 of 1996 is brought on record as Annexure 6. However, even after dismissal of the title suit concerned the University has filed Objection Case No. 135 of 1997 under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Survey Act, 1920 before the Assistant Settlement Officer Darbhanga for deletion of the name of the petitioners from the relevant record of rights and for entering the name of the respondent University in their places. The same has been allowed vide Annexure 4, which is 4 under challenge in this writ application. The first submission on behalf of the petitioners is that the order has been passed without hearing them. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that the concerned authority has passed the order without considering the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, whereby the relief sought by the respondent University against the vendor of the petitioners, for execution of the sale deed with respect to more than two bigha land of the same plot including the area which has been purchased by the petitioners had been refused and the suit was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court towards the ordersheet as contained in Annexure 4 that though both sides were absent on 30.9.2004 and they had not been heard on merit on any earlier occasion, the order has been passed. However, learned counsel could not give any reason as to why petitioners were not present when the case was called out. It is next submitted that from perusal of the judgment, it appears that the factum of judgment passed in title 5 suit was brought on the notice of the concerned authorities but it has not considered the same as the relevant documents allegedly were not produced, thus, even if it is assumed that such document was not produced then the opportunity should have been given to the petitioners to produce the concerned judgment and decree. It is also submitted that since the University has filed the objection and it was within its knowledge that such judgment and decree has been passed, it was also expected from it also to produce the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also brought to the notice of the fact before this Court that lands of the several other defendants of the aforesaid title suit were also in issue in other objection cases filed by respondent no. 2. One of which was Objection Case No. 136 of 1997, which was dismissed by the concerned authorities and while dismissing the same the authority concerned has also taken note of the judgment and decree passed in the concerned title suit, whereas, in the present case it has surprisingly not considered the same. 6 Though, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2, however, at the time of hearing it has been submitted that the authorities have found that the petitioners are not in possession. However, learned counsel does not have any answer to the claim of the petitioners regarding the dismissal of the title suit and, also could not demonstrate that the University had brought the concerned judgment rendered in title suit concerned to the notice of the authority. He was also not in position to show that in the title suit, the lands in dispute were not in issue. However, the fact is that during the pendency of this writ application even the appeal filed by the respondent no. 2 has been dismissed by the judgment as contained in Annexure 6. Though it is stated in the ordersheet dated 30.9.2004 that none had appeared when the matter was called out but surprisingly in the impugned order, which is of the same date, it is recorded at least at one place that the concerned authority has considered the contention raised on behalf of the opposite parties (the petitioners herein). 7 Thus, in my view, the judgment and decree of the Title Suit No. 58 of 1988 was indeed a relevant and vital document for consideration by the authorities for coming to a correct decision. If the documents were not filed by either of the parties who were also absent on the date fixed, in my opinion, the respondent no. 3 should have directed them to bring the concerned judgment on record specially in view of the fact that in another objection case which was also preferred against some of the defendants of aforesaid title suit, those, documents had been considered. The aforesaid documents become more relevant in view of the fact that during the pendency of this writ application the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the concerned title suit has also been dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned order as contained in Annexure 4 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no. 3 to consider the same afresh and record a reasoned order. While doing so he shall consider the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 58 of 1988 and Title Appeal 8 No. 37 of 1996. Since this order is being passed in the presence of the parties, the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 are expected to appear before the respondent no. 3 within six weeks along with a certified copy of this order as well as copies of other relevant documents in support of their respective contentions including copies of judgments and decrees passed in Title Suit No. 58 of 1988 and Title Appeal No. 37/1996. The respondent no. 3, thereafter, would consider the same on merit and pass reasoned order within three months after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. However, it is made clear that if the petitioners and the respondent no. 2 do not appear on the date fixed and do not co-operate in the proceeding concerned then the respondent no. 3 would be at liberty to pass an order even in their absence. Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)