Letters Patent Appeal No.1167 of 1997 Against the judgement and order dated 19.8.1997 passed in C.W.J.C.No.2174 of 1993. SMT.SABITRI DEVI --------- Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS---------- Respondents For the appellant : Mr. J.K. Sharma For the respondent No.5 : Mr. Surendra Kr. Singh, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Praveen Prakash, Advocate --- P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD The HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DR.RAVI RANJAN Prasad & Ranjan Writ petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 19th of August, 1997 passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C.No.2174 of 1993 dismissing the writ application, has preferred this appeal under Clause l0 of the Letters Patent. During the pendency of this appeal, original appellant had died and this appeal is being pursued by her heirs and legal representatives. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Register of land as contemplated under Section 9 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 was prepared and published under Section 10 of the said Act showing the name of Ram Dulari Devi. The property in dispute pertains to Khata No.192/29, Plot No.965/440, Plot No.967/443 and Plot No.1049/566, having area of 0.80 acre, 0.54 acres and 3.66 acres respectively. 2 Ramdeo Yadav and Alakh Rani filed objections to the recording of the name of said Ram Dulari Devi in the Register of land. Objections filed by Ramdeo Yadav were registered as Objection Case No.144 of 1988 and Objection Case No.118 of 1988. The objection filed by Alakh Rani was registered as Objection Case No.157 of 1988. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the objection of Alakh Rani but allowed the objection filed by Ramdeo Yadav. Aggrieved by the same, Ram Dulari Devi preferred appeal, but the same was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. However, no appeal was preferred by Alakh Rani. Against the order of Consolidation Officer rejecting the objections and the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing the appeal, Ram Dulari Devi preferred revision. Her revision has been dismissed. Although the appellant herein has not filed any objection before the Consolidation Officer nor figured at any stage of the previous proceeding, but she filed Revision Case No. 43 of 1990. According to her, her fore-father had surrendered the land in dispute through a registered deed of surrender dated 13th of January, 1925 in favour of Ex land-lord. Her further case is that, it is the Ex land-lord who after coming in possession of the land in dispute settled the same through a Hukumnama and submitted return in her family’s name and Jamabandi was also created. According to her, in the recent survey her name was also recorded and hence she did not had any occasion to file the objection under Section 10 (2) of the Act. Her grievance is that respondent No.5 without adding her as a party before the Consolidation Officer, got the order in his favour. However, after she came to know 3 about the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director, she has chosen to file revision application before the Director. Mr. Sharma, appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that this appellant had no occasion to file objection under Section 10 (2) of the Act as her name was already recorded in the recent survey and she assumed that the land register must have been prepared in her name. The whole submission of Mr. Sharma is based on a wrong assumption. The recent survey record do not show that her name was ever recorded. In fact it was recorded in the name of Ram Dulari Devi, showing respondent No.5 to be in possession. The land register did not contain the name of the appellant, she ought to have made objection. The Consolidation Officer, the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Director of Consolidation have concurrently accepted the case of respondent No.5. As pointed out by Mr. Shukla, appearing on behalf of respondent No.5, the land in dispute was recorded in the cadestral survey in the name of Bishwnath Gope and there is no dispute that respondent No.5 Ramdeo Yadav is one of his descendent. Not only this, in the revisional survey mentions the name of Ramdulari Devi in which possession of respondent No.5 Ramdeo Yadav has been recorded. It is worth mentioning here that the registered deed of the year 1976 alleged to have been accepted by the ancestor of Ramdeo Yadav, has been found to be forged. The learned Single Judge taking into account the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that in exercise of its jurisdiction, it would not be proper for this Court to unsettle those findings. We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error by passing the impugned judgement. 4 We do not find any merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed, but without any order as to costs. (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad,J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) Patna High Court Dated the 21st July, 2008 N.A.F.R./ahk/P.K.