CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.7161 OF 1991 (In the matter of an application Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) ********** 1. Dwarika Singh 2. Mundrika Singh 3. Brij Kishore Singh Sons of Late Rajdeo Singh 4. Sarju Singh, S/O Late Pratap Singh 5. Binda Singh, S/o Late Chandra Singh. 6. Salendra Singh, S/o Briju Singh. All residents of village-Sita Rampur Bihata, P.O.- Hulasganj, P.S.-Ghoshi New Hulasganj, District- Jahanabad. ….. Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Joint Director Consolidation, Gaya. 3. The Deputy Director Consolidation, Gaya. 4. The Consolidation Officer Ghoshi, Gaya. 5. Biraj Singh 6. Vijay Singh 7. Arun Singh 8. Arbind Singh 9. Awadhesh Singh Sl. No. 5 to 9 are sons of Bachu Singh, resident of village – Tenari, P.O. Tenari, P.S. Masaurhi, District- Patna. 10. Bachi Devi, W/o Balkishun Singh. 11. Nunu Singh, S/o Late Sheodhari Singh. 12. Sunil Singh, S/o Late Suresh Singh. 13. Arunati Devi,W/o Not know, D/o Suresh Singh Resident of Village Bemhai, P.O. Kako, District- Jehanabad. 14. Sunil Singh, S/O Late Suresh Singh. 15. Mahesh Singh 16. Ganesh Singh Both Sl. No. 15 & 16 are sons of Nunu Singh. All Respondent nos. 5 to 16 are residents of village Sita Rampur Bihata, P.O. & P.S-Hulasganj, District- Jahanabad. 17. Kalyani Devi, W/o Suresh Singh. R/o village-Mirganj, P.O. & P.S.-Wazirganj, District- Gaya. ----------Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. RAM SUHAWAN SINGH, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. 2 P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN Sheema Ali Khan, J. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners filed a suit for redemption of the mortgage, contested by the defendant, who claims that the mortgage had been redeemed long ago and that the land was auction sold which was purchased by the landlord, who settled in favour of the defendants. The plea of the defendants was rejected by the Trial Court in Title Suit No. 115 of 1965. Against the judgment and decree in the title suit, the defendant respondent nos.5 to 13 filed Title Appeal No. 8 of 1976. In the meantime a notification was issued under Section 3 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. The defendant filed an application that the suit and appeal would abate which was allowed. The petitioner challenged the order of abatement by filing Civil Revision No. 257 of 1978. The question as to whether the suit and appeal would abate under Section 4 (C) of the Conciliation Act was referred to a Division Bench. This Court in the case of Janak Sah and Ors. Vs. Jamuna Sah and Ors. reported in 1980 BBCJ, 544 held that since a suit for redemption, is not a suit for declaration or right or interest in any land, it will not abate under Section 4 (C) . Accordingly the appeal was revived. 3. During the pendency of this writ application, 3 this Court called for a report from the Court of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Jehanabad to explain why the appeal has remained pending for past 30 years. The report was received in this Court on 11.10.2010, indicating unsatisfactory reasons for the pendency of the appeal, which also indicated the lackadaisical attitude of the parties. In any event the appeal has now been dismissed. The result is that the petitioner plaintiff has a valid decree in his favour. 4. The matter is remanded back to the Joint Director Consolidation, Gaya to record finding and chak in favour of the petitioners, in accordance with the judgment and decree of the title suit and appeal. The findings recorded by the Joint Director Consolidation would be subject to the result of second appeal if any filed by the defendants. The order impugned dated 6.12.1977, 7.10.83 passed in Consolidation Appeal No. 219 of 1977-78 and order dated 18.1.1991 passed in Revisioxn No. 259 of 1983 are quashed. 5. This writ application is allowed. Patna High Court Dated 25th of November, 2010 Anand Kr./NAFR (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)