JUDGMENT
N.P. Singh, J.
1. The writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing different orders passed by the consolidation authorities.
2. Registers of lands of the village in question were prepared in accordance with Section 9 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’). The registers so prepared along with the statement of principles were published under Section 10(1) of the Act. The plots in question were shown to be in possession of Mosst. Bhagjogna. Mosst. Bhagjogna had died in the year 1972.
3. Before the Assistant Consolidation Officer objection was filed under Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act by the petitioners. The objection of the petitioners was allowed by an order dated 13-1-1981. Thereafter, respondents 6 to 8, who had not filed any objection under Section 10(2) of the Act filed objection before the Consolidation Officer under Section 12(2) of the Act. By order dated 12-2-1983 that objection was allowed. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Deputy Director, Consolidation which was dismissed on 31-3-1983, Even the revision filed before the Director. Consolidation was dismissed on 5-3-1984.
4. On behalf of the petitioners it was submitted that respondents 6 to 8 having not filed any objection under Section 10(2) of the Act could not have challenged any entry made in the map or register prepared under Section 9 or the statement of principles prepared under Section 9A of the Act in view of Section 10A. Section 10A is as follows: —
“No question in respect of any entry made in the map or registers prepared under Section 9 or the statement of principles prepared under S, 9A relating to the consolidation area, which might or ought to have been raised under Section 10 but has not been raised, shall not be raised or heard at any subsequent stage of the consolidation proceeding.”
On behalf of the petitioners it was urged that the Director, Consolidation should have held that as no objection was filed on behalf of
respondents 6 to 8 under Section 10(2) of the Act.
Section 10A operated as a bar and respondent. Consolidation Officer could not have allowed the objection of respondents 6 to 8 by his order dated 12-2-1983.
5. The scope of Section 10A has been
considered by a Bench of this Court in the
case of Jagarnath Thakur v. State of Bihar,
1984 BBCJ 140 where it was pointed out that if
a person does not file an objection under Section 10(2), he cannot raise any objection in respect of the entry at any subsequent stage of consolidation proceeding because the bar of Section 10-A operates in such cases. The question whether the bar of Section 10-A also operates on the power of the Director, Consolidation under Section 35 of the Act, however, was left open as it did not arise for consideration in the facts and circumstances of that case.
6. Section 10-A applies the bar to the “subsequent stage of consolidation proceedings”, the object being that a person, who has not availed of the opportunity of filing an objection within the time prescribed, should not be allowed to raise any such objection, as it is likely to delay the different stages of the consolidation proceedings. Section 10D, however, vests power in the Deputy Director of Consolidation if he is satisfied that the register of lands published under Sub-section (1) or corrected under Sub-sections (3), (4), (5), (6) of Section 10 a substantial number of raiyats could not avail of the opportunity to place their claim under Sub-section (2) of Section 10, to direct re-publication of the register of lands or statement of principles in the manner prescribed. If any such order is passed the persons concerned within 30 days of such re-publication, may file objection before the Assistant Consolidation Officer disputing the correctness and nature of entries in the register of land, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 10-A.
7. On behalf of the respondents it was urged that Section 10-A cannot be held to be bar on the power of the Director, Consolidation under Section 35 of the Act, because Section 35 vests supervisory power in the Director for rectifying a wrong committed by the consolidation authorities. Section 35 as inserted by Bihar Act 27 of 1975 is as follows : —
“The Director of Consolidation may of his own motion or on the application of any party or on reference being made by any subordinate authority, call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by such authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings: or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, and may after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit.”
On a plain reading this section vests a very wide power in the Director of Consolidation which can be exercised by him suo motu or on an application of any party. While exercising the power under that section the Director of Consolidation can examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by the consolidation authorities for the purpose of satisfying himself as to correctness, legality or propriety of orders passed in any case or proceedings.
8. Learned Additional Advocate General, who appeared for the respondent-State, pointed out that when Section 10-A says “which might or ought to have been raised under Section 10 but has not been raised, shall not be raised or heard at any subsequent stage of the consolidation proceeding”, it means that the bar will operate at subsequent stage of consolidation proceeding and not on the revisional power of the Director, Consolidation. In other words when the Director of Consolidation exercises the revisional power suo motu or on the application of a party, it is not a subsequent stage of the consolidation proceeding. In my opinion, there is substance in this contention . Director of Consolidation under Section 35 has to satisfy himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by such authorities in the case or proceedings. In appropriate cases he may be satisfied that petitioner before him could not file objection under Section 10(2) for the reasons beyond the control of such petitioner. It is welt known that in many cases for some reason entries in respect of plots are made in favour of persons who have neither tide nor possession over such plots, and the rightful owner, who is in possession might not have filed objection within the time prescribed due to some unfortunate and compelling reasons. In such cases, if it is held that the Director cannot interfere, it will amount to perpetuating a wrong done to a person. This interpretation is consistent with the interpretation given on different occasions in respect of supervisory powers vested in different authorities under different enactments. A Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Ramakant Singh v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, U. P., AIR 1975 All 126, while construing the scope of Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which is a parallel provision to Section 35 of
the Act, pointed out that under that section
the Director can examine the record to decide
whether it was a fit case for the exercise of the
revisional jurisdiction suo motu, and it was
observed that such opinion shall have to be
formed even in a case where the application
in revision moved by a party is defective having
been made beyond the prescribed period of
limitation or where all the necessary parties
have not been impleaded. However, in cases
where all the necessary parties have not been
impleaded, it was said that the Director of
Consolidation should give notice to all the
necessary parties irrespective of the fact
whether they were or were not impleaded in
the application.
9. Learned Additional Advocate General pointed out that in case of Gaffora v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Meerut, AIR 1975 SC 1716 while holding that Section 11A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which is a similar provision to Section 10-A of the Act, and bars all objections at later stage of the proceeding, did not hold that the said bar of Section 11-A operates even on the power of the Director under Section 48 of that Act It may also be pointed out that there is no “non obstante clause” in Section 10A so that it can be inferred that framers of the Act purported to give it an overriding effect even on Section 35 of the Act. In my opinion, Section 10A does not operate as bar on the power of the Director, Consolidation. The Director, Consolidation within the limitation prescribed for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction can exercise his power, under Section 35 for rectifying any mistake in the order passed or proceedings taken for ends of justice.
10. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is an admitted position that respondents 6 to 8 did not file any objection under Section 10(2) of the Act. As such, the bar prescribed under Section 10-A operated against them. They could not have taken an objection in respect of the entry under Section 12(2) because Sub-sec, (2) of Section 12 opens with (he words “subject to the provisions contained in Section 10A”. The Consolidation Officer, while allowing that objection by his order dated 12-2-1983, overlooked the bar imposed by Section 10-A of the Act. As such, that order cannot be sustained. The Director of Consolidation did not notice
this aspect of the matter while dismissing the application of the petitioners. The matter would have been different if in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction he had come to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case it was only just and proper that respondents 6 to S should have been allowed to file an objection for the ends of justice. But, as none of the aforesaid questions has been considered by the learned Director, Consolidation, I am left with no option but to allow this application and to set aside the order dated 5-3-1984 passed by him. The application is, accordingly, allowed. The revision application shall be heard afresh and shall be disposed of in accordance with law in light of the observations made above.
11. As respondents 6 to 8 have entered appearance I direct the petitioner as well as respondents 6 to 8 to appear before the Director, Consolidation on or before 29th November, 1984 in order to avoid delay in service of notice on the parties concerned. On that day, a date for hearing of the revision application shall be fixed and it shall be disposed of in accordance with law.
M.P. Verma, J.
I agree.