CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.9154 OF 1988 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 1. SHRI RAM JANKIJI 2. SHRI RADHA KRISHNAJI 3. SHRI MAHADEOJI THROUGH THEIR SHEBAIT, RAJ KUMAR MAHESH NANDAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF SHEOHAR BAZAR, P.S. SHEOHAR, DISTRICT SITAMARHI. ---- APPELLANTS Versus 1. JT. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION (MUZ), PATNA 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, SITARMARHI 3. CONSOLIDATION OFFICER, SHEOHAR, P.S. SHEOHAR, DISTRICT SITAMARHI ---- RESPONDENTS 1ST PARTY 4. THAKUR PRABHAKAR 5. THAKUR DIWAKAR BOTH SONS OF LATE THAKUR GIRJA NANDAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHUARIA, P.S. SHEOHAR, DISTRICT SITAMARHI. ---- RESPONDENTS 2ND PARTY For The Petitioner : RAGHUNATH KUMAR For The Respondent :(GP6) P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN S.A. Khan, J. The three petitioners who are deities have filed this writ application through their Shebait, Raj Kumar Mahesh Nandan Singh. The lands in question were the lands of Raja Sheoraj Nandan Singh appertaining to C.S. Khata No. 3328 and 3336 measuring a total of 62 decimals. There was a partition in the family of the Raja and the plots no. 3328 and 3336 fell in the share of his wife Rani Visakha Kuer. In the year 1962 Rani Visakha Kuer endowed part of the lands to the deities. It is the admitted case of the parties that 25 decimals out of the 62 decimals were settled to Nawab Singh grand father of 2 respondent no. 7. The dispute arises out of the fact that 42 decimals of land of C.S. Plot No. 3328 and 3336 which were renumbered as 5157 and 5159 was recorded in the name of Girjanandan Singh, Son of Nawab Singh and grand father of respondent no. 7. The petitioners filed an application under Section 103 A of the Bihar Tenancy Act which was dismissed. Subsequently the final Khatiyan was prepared and the petitioners filed a suit under Section 106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act. It is the case of the petitioners that the suit abated due to the declaration that the village in question came under the consolidation proceedings. 2. The petitioners filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer who corrected the R.S. Khatiyan and recorded 25 decimals in the name of Girjanandan Singh. The Appellate Court i.e. the Deputy Director, Consolidation recorded 30 decimals in the name of the respondents. Petitioners filed a revision which has been disposed of by order dated 20.10.1987/27.10.1987 contained in annexure-4. 3. The writ petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Director and the Joint Director, Consolidation contained in annexures 2 and 4. 4. The case of the respondents on the other hand is that apart from the registered settlement 25 decimals of land in favour of respondent no. 7, it is said that by oral settlement the ex-land lord had settled 5 decimals of land in favour of the respondents. The counsel for the respondents also points out that after the application under 3 Section 103 of the Bihar Tenancy Act was rejected, the petitioners ought to have filed the revision application and the fact that he waited for the final publication of the Khatiyan and filed a suit indicates that they were not very vigilant in following their cases. It is also submitted that there was a 145 proceeding between the parties and the respondents were declared to be in possession as a result of the said proceeding and in the absence of any order, reversing those findings, they would be binding on the parties. Another fact which is important is that the petitioners filed Title Suit No. 30 of 1977 which abated because of the consolidation proceedings. The findings of the Appellate Court are that the respondents some how or the other encroached upon 5 decimals of land and have taken possession of the land which has been disputed by the petitioners whereas the Revisional Court has gone a step further and held as quoted below. The order indicates approach of the Revisional Court. “;g jkuh fo’kk[kk dq¡oj ds i{k dk gh dsl gS fd ogk¡ 62 fM0 tehu gS blfy, eSa ;g mfpr le>rk gw¡ fd Bkdqj izHkkdj ds i{k esa 42 fM0 tehu muds uke /kkjk 145 dh ?kksi.kk ,oa losZ bUnzkt ds vuqlkj ntZ dh tk; vkSj ckdh tehu tks Hkh tehu cps pkgs og 20 fM0 gks] 17 fM0 gks] ugha gks] pkgs ftruk Hkh gks] mls ft/kj nsorkvksa ds efUnj cuk;s gq, gSa] m/kj ls bu nsorkvksa ds uke ls ntZ fd;k tk;A Bkdqj izHkkdj dh tehu muds edku vkSj isVªksy iEi dh vksj ls fn;k tk;A ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa yfEcr fjfotu ds vkns’k rd ;g vkns’k ykxw jgsxkA” 5. The findings of the Revisional Court do not impress this Court. Apart from others for the reason that, where there is a 4 registered document of settlement with respect to 25 decimals of land it does not stand to reason that the ex-land lord would have settled an additional 5 decimals of land by the oral settlement. The settlement made by ex-landlord are always under microscopic scrutiny as during the time of vesting of the Zamindari, several persons staked their claims on the basis of Sada Hukumnama or oral settlement which is disbelieved by the Courts unless there is some strong evidence to support the oral settlement. In the present case, the respondents apart from making a pleading, have not been able to support his settlement of 5 decimals of land by oral settlement in the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, appellate authority or for that matter the revisional authority. I also find it strange that while revisional authority has placed reliance on a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. wherein it is said that the possession of the respondents has been confirmed. The contents of the order or even the area on which the proceedings were initiated have not been brought on record. In fact when I put the question to the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, he was not able to show the area or the order of the 145 proceedings to substantiate his case. Therefore, I find that it would not be proper to hold that the respondents have title on the basis of 145 proceedings. The Revisional Court had proceeded to declare title of the land as if distribute/allocate the land as if the land belong to the Revisional Court by saying that wherever the land is, whatever the area of land is, it should be treated to be the land of petitioner and the Chak may be recorded in his name. The petitioners on the other hand 5 are claiming 42 decimals which were settled in the deities by a registered document in the year 1962. This Court would rather believe the registered document of settlement of 1962, than to approve the reasoning given by the revisional authority as quoted above. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of the Revisional Court is also bad because of the fact that it has not considered the documents which were brought on record by the petitioner. Referring to annexure-3, it is pointed out that as many as 19 documents were filed before the revisional authority which have not been considered. It has also been argued that the lands in question are not agricultural in nature as there is a finding of the Courts and is admitted by the respondents that they run a petrol pump on the lands which have been settled in their favour. It is said that the area was declared to be a notified area at the time of filing of the revisional application which in itself change the nature of the land. In reply to the submissions the counsel for the respondents submits that unless there is a notification under Section 4(1) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 the lands cannot be excluded from the consolidation proceedings, specially in view of the fact that the proceedings are restricted to the entry of the Chak in the name of one of the other party. I agree with the submissions made on behalf of the respondents regarding this aspect of the matter only. 7. For the reasons stated in this order, I quash the orders contained in annexures 2 and 4 respectively dated 18.6.1986 and order dated 20.10.1987/27.10.1987. It would always be open for the 6 aggrieved party to take steps for legal remedy if available. 8. This application is allowed. Patna High Court, The 22nd of July, 2010 N.A.F.R./Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)