IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1008 of 2009 BANARSI PRASAD @ GODA PRASAD, son of Shri Ram Singhashan Sahu, Resident of village Chatra, P.S. Dawath, District Rohtas … Petitioner/ Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna 3. Pistol Singh, son of Late Musafir Singh 4. Birbahadur Singh, son of Late Musafir Singh 5. Phoolmati Devi, Late Ramadhar Singh 6. Sharda Kumari, wife of late Ramashankar Singh 7. Neena Kumari, Daughter of late Ramadhar Singh, wife of Rabindra Singh 8. Parvati Kumari, Daughter of late Ramadhar Singh and minor in the care of her mother Phoolmati Devi All 3 to 8 are residents of village Chatra, P.S. Dawath, District Rohtas … Respondents/Respondents ----------- 3. 8.2.2010 I.A.No. 4897/2009 Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also in the light of the facts and circumstances mentioned in this application the delay of 37 days in filing of this appeal, L.P.A. 1008/2009, is hereby condoned. As we have condoned the delay in filing of this appeal we with the consent of the parties are also inclined to dispose of this appeal on merits. This appeal arises out of the order dated 12.5.2009 in C.W.J.C. No. 12086/2008 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has dismissed the 2 writ application filed by the appellant- writ petitioner wherein he had an assailed revisional order under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). The counsel for the appellant- writ petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the Director of Consolidation in exercise of power under section 35 of the Act disbelieving the case of adoption of the appellant- writ petitioner was wholly untenable in the eye of law, especially when the same was backed by a registered deed of adoption dated 17.9.1966 which under Section 16 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956 is binding on any court inasmuch as the court has to presume that such adoption was made in compliance of the provisions of the aforesaid Act. Learned Counsel has thus contended before us that as such, it was an error on the part of the Director of Consolidation acting as a court to disregard the same while dismissing the revision application filed by the appellant-writ petitioner. In the opinion of this Court the presumption 3 under section 16 of the Act is always a rebutable presumption which would be born out from section 16 of the Act quoted hereinbelow: “16. Presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption.- Whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force is produced before any court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption, the court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is disproved.” This aspect of the matter is also well settled and reference in this connection may be made to judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of N.R. Trivedi Vs. District Education Officer Ananda reported in AIR 2004 Gujarat 53. As a matter of fact this aspect has also been examined at length with the help of finding of Civil Court on the alleged registered deed of gift by the Director of Consolidation in the order dated 24.3.2000 impugned in the connected writ application wherein it has been held that :- 4 ^^nksuks i{kksa }kjk nk;j lk{;ksa] fuEu U;k;ky;ksa }kjk ikfjr vkns'kksa ,oa ekuuh; flfoy dksVZ }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ds voyksduksijkUr ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd xksnukek ds vk/kkj ij egs'k flag ds ifjokj dh Hkwfe ds laca/k esa oknh }kjk nk;j caVokjk VkbZfVy lwV okn la[;k 195@75 esa ekuuh; lc&tt] 1@75 lklkjke us fnukad 21&12&79 dks cukjlh izlkn ¼oknh½ dks egs'k flag dk adopted son ,oa VkbZfVy caVokjk dk nkok [kkfjt dj fn;k gS ftlds fo:} esa oknh] cukjlh izlkn us ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa QLVZ vihy okn la[;k 13@80 nk;j fd;k gS tks fu"iknu gsrq yafcr gSa vr,o] tcrd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ls yfEcr QLVZ vihy okn la[;k 13@80 dk fu"iknu ugha gks tkrk rcrd ekuuh; r`rh; lc&tt] O;ogkj U;k;ky;] lklkjke }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 21-12-79 ds vuqlkj oknh }kjk nk;j izLrqr nksuksa iqujh{k.k okn [kkjht fd;k tkrk gSA** Thus, when the civil court has found no merit in the story of adoption and the title set up by the petitioner way of a Will also has not been found to be established in the suit filed by him in absence of its being probated, no error can be said to have been committed by the Director of Consolidation in rejecting the case of the petitioner and consequently also dismissing his revision petition. As a matter of fact the learned Single Judge has also dealt upon this aspect in a well considered manner wherein she has placed reliance on the following 5 finding of the civil court: “ After carefully examining the evidence on record, I find that the story of adoption is false. The much published documents the deed of gift itself describe Banarsy is son of Ram Singhasan Sah. The contents also indicates that Mahesh Singh had not adopted Banarsy Prasad Sah as son, there are many other documents shows itself Banarsy as son of Ram Siunghasan Sah, there is no any documents in evidence to show that any religious ceremony was performed giving Banarsy was not adopted by Mahesh Singh.” We, therefore, find no reason to take any different view and consequently while affirming the order of the learned Single Judge approving the findings of the Director of Consolidation, we as a mark of caution would only clarify that the apprehension of the appellant- writ petitioner as with regard to the order passed by the consolidation authorities affecting his title for once and ever is not only misconceived in view of the operative portion of such order already quoted above but also in view of the settled position in law that the question of 6 title after de-notification of the consolidation proceedings, can always be agitated before the civil court. Here in this case the civil court infact has already decided the matter against the appellant- writ petitioner and therefore, it is now the result of the pending first appeal before this Court (F.A. No. 13/1980) which would strictly govern the matter pertaining to the claim of title of the land in question. That being so, this Court would find no error in the order of learned Single Judge and accordingly this appeal is disposed of by only reiterating that the question of title of the parties for the disputed land would be governed by the judgment and decree in F.A.No. 13/1980. (Dipak Misra, C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surenedra/