IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6447 of 2002 1. JAGARNATH THAKUR SON OF LATE PALTAN THAKUR 2. JAGIA DEVI WIDOW OF LATE MAHESH THAKUR 3. ARUN THAKUR 4. SHASHI THAKUR 5. RANDHIR THAKUR 6. RAM AYODHAYA THAKUR 7. NAGMANI KUMAR THAKUR 8. KARN KUMAR THAKUR 9. LAKSHMI NARAIN THAKUR, ALL SONS OF LATE MAHESH THAKUR, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KHAIRA, P.S.- SARAIYA ANCHAL & P.O.- JOINTPUR, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. 10. DRAUPADI DEVI WIFE OF RAM CHANDRA THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BANAULI, P.O.-MADHAUL, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR 11. KUNTI DEVI WIFE OF RAM BIDHYA THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O.- POKHARAIRA, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR 12. RAJ KUMAR DEVI WIFE OF ASHOK THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GOURA, P.O.- SARAIYA, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, MUZAFFARPUR. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE CONSOLIDATION OFFICER, ANCHAL SARAIYA, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR 5. THE ASSISTANT CONSOLIDATION OFFICER, ANCHAL SARAIYA, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR 6. PRITHWI THAKUR 7. DHANESHWAR THAKUR 8. KAILASH THAKUR 9. SHANKAR THAKUR, ALL SONS OF LATE PAWITAR THAKUR 10. MOST. PHULJHARIA WIDOW OF LATE INDRADEO THAKUR 11. RAM CHANDRA THAKUR 12. BIJAY KUMAR, BOTH SONS OF LATE BASUDEO THAKUR 13. MOST. SHAKUNTALA DEVI 14. MOST. MEERA DEVI, BOTH WIDOW OF LATE BASUDEO THAKUR 15. RAWALI KUMAR 16. NAV RATNA KUMAR 17. ROOPRATAN KUMAR, ALL DAUGHTERS OF LATE BASUDEO THAKUR, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KHAIRA, P.O.- JAINTPUR, P.S. & ANCHAL- SARAIYA, DISTRCIT- MUZAFFARPUR. ----------- 5 20.02.2009 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners, private respondents and the State. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated - 2 - 26th February, 2001 passed in Revision Case No. 2372 of 1990 by the Joint Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur, as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application, whereby the oder dated 12.09.1990 (Annexure-5) passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation in Appeal No. 15 of 1990 has been set aside. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondent Joint Director, Consolidation, respondent no.2, while considering the revision application against the appellate order has virtually exercised the appellate power and while doing so has arrived at a perverse finding by holding that the opposite parties who are petitioners in this writ application have accepted the validity of the sale deed dated 20th September, 1960 which was in respect of the entire area of the plot covered under the old Khesra No. 470 and has further observed that the petitioners herein at the same time have claimed that the aforesaid plot in question was a Gairmajarua Aam Land. It is further submitted that the above two findings contrary to the declaration of the Civil Court with respect to the said plot wherein it was held that the vendor of the said sale deed had no right, title and interest in respect of the land covered under the sale deed, and as such, the vendor of the sale deed in question could not transfer any right, - 3 - title and interest in favour of the vendee. Learned counsel in support of the same has drawn the attention of the Court to the point no. 4 decided in Title Appeal No. 84 of 1965 as per the judgement dated 27th July, 1970 (Annexure-1) and also the judgemnet of this Court dated 26th September, in Second Appeal No. 582 of 1970 (Annexure-2) whereby the judgment of the lower appellate court was affirmed. In other words the submission is that the respondent no.2 while hearing the revision application has failed to consider the land in dispute between the parties read with the judgement of the Civil Court as affirmed by the lower appellate Court and this Court as per Annexures- 1 & 2. Learned counsel further submits that the land in question over which the petitioner claims was not on the basis of the sale deed dated 20th September, 1960, but as a matter of fact, the plot in question was settled to him by the then Block Development Officer in the year 1958 itself. As such, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submits that on perusal of thejudgement of the Civil Court as affirmed by the lower appellate Court as well as by this Court, as contained in Annexures- 1 & 2, it would appear that the judgement was only in respect of one katha of land which was purchased under the said - 4 - sale deed situated towards the East and not for rest of the land. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submits that as a matter of fact the application filed by the petitioner before the Consolidation authority was in respect of the entire land covered under the plot no.470. Upon considering the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of their respective pleadings, it appears that the dispute and differences between the parties is with regard to the identity and area of the land. The submission of the petitioner is that the application filed by the respondents before the Consolidation Officer covered entire of the plot no. 470 Learned counsel for the respondents has disputed the submissions of the petitioner on questions of fact. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, it would be appropriate that the respondent no.2 passes the order afresh in Revision Case No. 2372 of 1990 with clear finding with regard to land indicating khata number, plot number, boundary and area in dispute between the parties read with the judgement of the Civil Court affirmed by the lower appellate Court and this Court as contained in Annexures-1 & 2 with liberty to both the parties to file any additional documents substantiating their claims. Accordingly, the impugned - 5 - order dated 26th of February, 2001, as contained in Revision Case No. 2372 of 19990 (Annexure-6) is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2 for passing fresh order in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of four months on receipt/production of the certified copy of the present order. The writ application is disposed of with the above observations/directions. Manish/- (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)