SHIV KUMAR THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the orders contained in Annexures 1 and 2 passed by the Director of Consolidation in Revision Case No. 1060 of 1977 and the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Appeal Case No. 182 of 1976 respectively.

(2.) THE main grievance of the petitioner relates to survey plot No. 238 in village Chatrri Pusas, Anchal Musahari in the district of Muzaffarpur. It appears that certain orders were passed by the Chakbandi Officer on 22 -5 -1976 under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, in respect of plot Nos. 239 and 240. Plot No. 238 was not the subject matter of decision in that case. In appeal under Section 10 (6) of the Act the Deputy Director of Consolidation decided that plot No. 238 belonged to one Mossomat Sukani on which she had a house and Ban. He directed that the name of Mossomat Sukani be entered in the relevant records. It may be stated here that Mossomat Sukani was not a party before the Consolidation Officer but she filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in which the above order was passed, The petitioner filed an application under Section 35 of the Act challenging that the appellate authority could not have passed that order in favour of Mossomat Sakuni inasmuch as she was not a party before the Consolidation Officer and had not filed objection under Section 10 (3) of the Act and that plot No. 238 was not the subject matter of the objection under Section 10 of the Act. The revisional authority by order contained in Annexure 1 held that the revisional survey records in which the name of Mossomat Sukuni had been recorded had been corrected without notice under Section 108A of the Bihar Tenancy Act. In exercise of his power under Section 35 of the Act he held that Mossomat Sakuni had been recorded as Sikmidar in the revisional record of rights and was entitled to be recorded as such. The revisional authority has, therefore, affirmed the order passed by the appellate authority.

(3.) SECTION 10 of the Act provides for publication of register of lands and settlement of principles and objection thereon. Within 45 days of the publication of the statement of principles prepared under Section 9A any person can file an objection in respect thereof before the Assistant Consolidation Officer disputing the correctness and nature of entries in the records or in the statement of principles under Section 10 (2) of the Act. Such objections are to be decided by the Assistant Consolidation Officer after hearing the persons interested. A person aggrieved by an order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer or Consolidation Officer under Sub -section (3), (4) or (5) of Section 10 may file under appeal before the Assistant Director of Consolidation under Section 19 (6) of the Act. It is true that in the present case it appears that no objection was filed by Mossomat Sukuni under Section 10 (2) of the Act before the Consolidation Officer but she filed an appeal under Section 10 (6) of the Act challenging the correctness of the entries in respect of plot No. 238. Learned Counsel for the petitioner may be right in his submission that no appeal lay before the Assistant Director of Consolidation under Section 10 (6) of the Act inasmuch as Mossomat Sukuni cannot be said to be an aggrieved person in respect of the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer, contained in Annexure 3. It may again be stated here that the Consolidation Officer has not passed any order in respect of plot No. 238 but I am unable to agree with the learned Counsel that such an order as contained in Annexure 1 could not be passed by the Director Consolidation under Section 35 of the Act. Section 35 of the Act reads as under -