{"id":104292,"date":"2011-09-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hridya-nand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-8-september-2011"},"modified":"2017-05-13T10:59:35","modified_gmt":"2017-05-13T05:29:35","slug":"hridya-nand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-8-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hridya-nand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-8-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Hridya Nand Pandey vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 8 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court<\/div>\n
Hridya Nand Pandey vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 8 September, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Shiva Kirti Singh<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n       Letters Patent Appeal No.366 of 2004.\n                        IN\n\n  (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 7915\/2000)\n\n   Hridya Nand Pandey son of late Ram Briksh Pandey,\n       Resident of village Milki Miyazipur P.S. Natwaar District\n       Rohtas.\n                                             .... .... Appellant.\n                                Versus\n   1.The State of Bihar.\n   2.The Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna.\n   3.TheDeputy Director of Consolidation, Rohtas at\n    Sasaram\n   4.The Consolidation Officer, Dinara, Rohtas.\n   5.Sri Ganga Sagar Pandey son of Late Hari Naraya\n    Pandey,\n   6.Prabhawati Kuer wife of Late Triloki Pandey.\n   7.Sri Surendra Pandey son of Late Triloki Pandey.\n   8.Sri Talukraj Pandey\n    Res. 5 to 8 residents of village Milki Niyazipur P.S.Natwaar\n     District Rohtas.\n   9(i)Motijhari Kuer wife of late Lallan Pandey\n\n   9(ii) Vijay Kant Pandey @ Pappu Pandey son of late\n       Lallan Pandey\n\n   9.(iii) Munniji wife of Rajvansh Dubey R\/o village\n       Mangraulia P.S.Rajpur District Rohtas.\n   9.(iv) Pushpa Kumari wife of Late Arun Tiwary R\/o village\n       Sawandehri P.S. Kochas District Rohtas.\n   9(v) Kanchan Kumari wife of Dinesh Pandey, R \/o village\n       Handi P.S.Rajpur District Rohtas.\n   9(vi)Ranju Kumari wife of Kalendra Chaubey R\/o village\n       Dumri P.S. Bhojpur District Buxar.\n\n   10.Sri Rajbansh Pandey son of Late Chandra Kumar\n     Pandey.\n   11.Sri Ramashankar Tiwary.\n   12. Sri Shiv Shankar Tiwary sons of not known.\n   13. Raj Lakhi\n   14.Shivjhari\n                                       2\n\n\n\n\n                   15.Sumitra.\n                     All daughters of Late Chandra Kumar Pandey.\n\n                   16.Sri Banarasi Pandey son of Late Deo Lochan Pandey.\n                     Res.10 to 16 residents of village Milki Niyazipur\n                      P.S.Natwaar District Rohtas.\n                   17.Madan Pandey son of Late Jagarnath Pandey Resident of\n                      village Milki Niyazipur P.S.Natwaar District Rohtas.\n\n                                                                   .... ....\n\n                                                               Respondents.\n\n         ===================================================\n<\/pre>\n
         For the Appellant:         :Mr. K.N.Singh,Sr.Adv.\n<\/p>\n
                                      Mr.Manish Kumar, Adv.\n<\/p>\n
                                       Mr.Kamaldeo Sharma,Adv.\n<\/p>\n
         For the Respondents         : Mr.Shashi Shekhar
\n                                       Dwevedi, Sr.Adv.\n<\/p>\n
                                       Mr.Shailendra Kumar
\n                                       Chaubey,Adv.\n<\/p>\n
         ===================================================
\n                                 CORAM:\n<\/p>\n
                  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
\n                                    &
\n                   HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY.\n<\/p>\n
\nShivaji Pandey,J              In this appeal, the primal question arises as to<\/p>\n
                    whether the application filed by the appellant under Section<\/p>\n
                    10B of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention<\/p>\n
                    of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter, in short, referred<\/p>\n
                    to as the \u201eAct\u201f) was maintainable, in view of the fact that<\/p>\n
                    the objection raised by the appellant purportedly under<\/p>\n
                    Section 10(2) of the Act was earlier rejected. Another point
\n                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
which is also to be considered is as to whether the<\/p>\n
application under Section 10B of the Act was maintainable<\/p>\n
in view of a subsequent event of abatement of the suit at the<\/p>\n
appellate stage. The next question is as to whether the<\/p>\n
Revisional authority in stead of dismissing the revision<\/p>\n
application on the ground that the application under Section<\/p>\n
10B of the Act was not maintainable, in view of the<\/p>\n
rejection of the application under Section 10(2) of the Act,<\/p>\n
ought to have decided the case on merit.\n<\/p>\n
          2. The brief facts of the case are that admittedly<\/p>\n
one Anarkali Devi was originally the land holder of C.S.<\/p>\n
Khata No.4, plot nos.291, 279, 395 and 396 having an area<\/p>\n
of 1.65 acres of village Sonbarsa P.S.Dinara in the district<\/p>\n
of Rohtas. As per the claim of the writ-petitioner-appellant,<\/p>\n
the original land holder sold the aforesaid land in favour of<\/p>\n
Manbaso Kuer (Devi) by registered sale-deed in the year<\/p>\n
1917 for consideration money of Rs.16\/-. Later on in the<\/p>\n
year 1919 Manbaso Kuer (Devi), orally sold the land to the<\/p>\n
father of petitioner no.1 for Rs.19\/- by way of oral sale and<\/p>\n
in pursuance thereof, she had handed over the original sale-<\/p>\n
deed to the father of petitioner no.1 and since then, he is<\/p>\n
having possession of that registered sale-deed. In the year
\n                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
1936, in between land-lords, there was a partition suit of<\/p>\n
Tauzi of land-holders. The suit land had fallen in the share<\/p>\n
of landlord Sri Ambika Mishra. Earlier it was            under<\/p>\n
Bhoali rent and thereafter it was converted into Nakadi<\/p>\n
Rent and, accordingly, the ancestors of the petitioner-<\/p>\n
appellant were paying rent which was being accepted by the<\/p>\n
landlord. It was further averred by the appellant that the ex-<\/p>\n
landlords were Yajman of respondents and in connivance<\/p>\n
with the respondents, at the time of vesting, the landlord<\/p>\n
filed return in favour of the respondents and, accordingly,<\/p>\n
Jamabandi was created in the name of the respondents. It<\/p>\n
was further asserted that Ambika Mishra filed Rent Suit<\/p>\n
No. 1555 of 1953\/71 of 1954 against the respondents for<\/p>\n
realization of rent. In that rent suit, the petitioner-appellant<\/p>\n
were not made party, having got knowledge of the same<\/p>\n
they appeared in the court as interveners but with the<\/p>\n
connivance of the respondents and Ambika Mishra, the case<\/p>\n
was closed as the rent was purportedly paid by the<\/p>\n
respondents. In 1962, the appellant filed Title Suit No.<\/p>\n
25\/306 of 1962 for declaration of title and confirmation of<\/p>\n
possession of the suit land. The suit was decreed in favour<\/p>\n
of the appellant.                 The respondents challenged
\n                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
the decree before the appellate court and the appellate court<\/p>\n
set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, vide<\/p>\n
judgment and decree dated 3rd January 1975. The appellant<\/p>\n
filed Second Appeal before this Court vide S.A.No. 68 of<\/p>\n
1975 and the judgment of the appellate court was set aside.<\/p>\n
The case was remanded back to the appellate court. At the<\/p>\n
appellate stage, an application under Section 4 ( c) of the<\/p>\n
Act was filed making prayer for abatement of the suit in<\/p>\n
appeal and in pursuance thereof, the suit abated, vide order<\/p>\n
dated 19th July 1984.\n<\/p>\n
          3. After the abatement of the suit, the appellant<\/p>\n
filed an application under Section 10B of the Act making a<\/p>\n
prayer that the land in dispute be recorded in favour of the<\/p>\n
appellant giving the fact as    stated hereinabove and the<\/p>\n
same was registered as Case No. 1 of 1984-85. The<\/p>\n
Consolidation court rejected the application of the appellant<\/p>\n
and confirmed the entries made in favour of respondents.<\/p>\n
Being aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation court, an<\/p>\n
appeal, vide Appeal No. 41 of 1985-86, was filed by the<\/p>\n
appellant before the Deputy Director, Consolidation,<\/p>\n
Rohtas, Sasaram which was allowed in favour of appellant.<\/p>\n
The litigation did not stop there, the respondents filed
\n                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
revision   before       the   revisional   court   i.e.   Director,<\/p>\n
Consolidation vide Revision No. 10 of 1986 which was<\/p>\n
allowed in favour of respondents. The revisional order was<\/p>\n
challenged in writ petition vide C.W.J.C.No. 4997 of 1987<\/p>\n
and this court remanded back the matter to the revisional<\/p>\n
court. On remand, the Revisional Court again decided the<\/p>\n
case in favour of respondents holding that the application<\/p>\n
under Section 10B of the Act was not maintainable in view<\/p>\n
of the fact that earlier an application filed u\/s 10(2) of the<\/p>\n
Act was rejected 10 years ago. This revisional order has<\/p>\n
been affirmed by the Writ Court vide order under appeal.<\/p>\n
           4. The consolidation court in its order has said<\/p>\n
that he made inspection of the land and took statement of<\/p>\n
persons present at the spot and found possession of<\/p>\n
respondents. This finding of Consolidation Officer was<\/p>\n
challenged by the appellant, on the ground that the enquiry<\/p>\n
was conducted behind the back of appellant and he was<\/p>\n
not informed about the date of inspection by the<\/p>\n
Consolidation Officer. Records do not contain any<\/p>\n
Memorandum of Inspection.\n<\/p>\n
           5. It appears from the record that the writ<\/p>\n
petitioners had filed an application in the year 1974 before
\n                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
the Consolidation court vide Case No.20\/6232 of 1974 for<\/p>\n
correcting the entry made in the record of rights prepared<\/p>\n
by the Consolidation authorities. The ground was simply<\/p>\n
the judgment and decree in the title suit as passed by the<\/p>\n
Munsif Court      in favour of the appellant. Clearly the<\/p>\n
application was in the nature of application under Section<\/p>\n
10B of the Act bringing to the notice of authority the<\/p>\n
subsequent development by way of judgment and decree of<\/p>\n
learned Munsif. Entries in the record of rights were sought<\/p>\n
to be corrected according to the judgment and decree of the<\/p>\n
learned Munsif. There is not dispute that the Appellate<\/p>\n
Court had reversed that judgment and decree in January<\/p>\n
1975 itself. Hence such application was wrongly labeled<\/p>\n
under Section 10(2) of the Act. Parties were       litigating<\/p>\n
before the Civil Court till 1984 and hence, such an<\/p>\n
application, apparently under Section 10B of the Act was<\/p>\n
prematured in 1974 or 1975. Any order on such application<\/p>\n
could not have adversely affected the parties till the Civil<\/p>\n
Court was proceeding with the suit or appeal in its plenary<\/p>\n
jurisdiction. The consolidation officer without deciding any<\/p>\n
issues, rejected the application vide order dated 22nd May<\/p>\n
1975 (Annexure-B) on the ground that the supporting
\n                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
documents i.e. the judgment etc. were not filed by the<\/p>\n
appellant before the Consolidation Court.<\/p>\n
           6. The writ-petitioner\/appellant in the writ<\/p>\n
petition in Para-34 has asserted that there was no<\/p>\n
notification under Section 3 of the Act and, as such, under<\/p>\n
ignorance the application was filed under Section 10(2) of<\/p>\n
the Act in the year 1974 and, hence, the order passed by the<\/p>\n
consolidation authority under Section 10(2) of the Act has<\/p>\n
no value in law.\n<\/p>\n
           7.At the appellate stage before this Court for the<\/p>\n
first time the appellant in the Memo of appeal asserted that<\/p>\n
even presuming the oral sale be not accepted, then also the<\/p>\n
appellant has succeeded to title and possession of Manbaso<\/p>\n
Kuer (Devi) who was from the family of the appellant, by<\/p>\n
inheritance. .\n<\/p>\n
           8. The case of the respondents is that C.S. Khata<\/p>\n
was recorded in the name of Mostt. Anarkali who was the<\/p>\n
limited owner and she had no authority to sell the land in<\/p>\n
favour of Mostt. Manbaso. It was further contended that as<\/p>\n
no consideration amount was paid to Anarkali, as a<\/p>\n
consequence thereof the sale remains only a paper<\/p>\n
transaction and, in fact, it remained inoperative. The sale-
\n                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
deed purportedly executed by Anarkali to Manbaso was<\/p>\n
forged as she had no need for selling the suit property.<\/p>\n
Anarkali was “Azi”(grand mother) of the respondents, on<\/p>\n
her death, as she was issueless, ownership of the property<\/p>\n
devolved upon the respondents by way of survivorship and,<\/p>\n
as such, they are really title holders of the lands in question.<\/p>\n
The Respondents stated that the appellant never          raised<\/p>\n
objection against the return filed by the ex-landlord at the<\/p>\n
time of vesting of the land and, as such, they are real title-<\/p>\n
holders of the land and they are in possession since the<\/p>\n
death of Anarkali. About Manbaso Kuer it is alleged that<\/p>\n
she had never been in possession of the aforesaid land and<\/p>\n
she did not transfer any title and possession to the appellant.<\/p>\n
There was a partition among the ex-landlords vide T.S.No.<\/p>\n
3 of 1936. As per the partition the disputed land came to the<\/p>\n
share of Ambika Mishra who filed Rent Case No. 799 of<\/p>\n
1945 in which parties compromised after realization of the<\/p>\n
arrears of rent from Hari Narayan Pandey, respondents\u201f<\/p>\n
ancestor. Another Rent Suit No. 1955 of 1953\/71 of 1954<\/p>\n
was filed for realization of rent and the rent was paid by the<\/p>\n
respondents and, accordingly, the suit was disposed of. The<\/p>\n
respondents have claimed that they paid the rent to the ex-
\n                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
landlord and accordingly, receipts were issued in their<\/p>\n
favour. During the R.S. operation the land was recorded in<\/p>\n
his name which further        consolidates the case of the<\/p>\n
respondents about the title over the land in question.<\/p>\n
          9. The appellant, during argument raised a point<\/p>\n
that as there was no notification u\/s 3 of the Act, relying on<\/p>\n
a notification dated 4th October 1975 stated that any<\/p>\n
decision prior to that date, has no value in law but the<\/p>\n
respondents by way of supplementary affidavit have<\/p>\n
brought the notification showing that the State Government<\/p>\n
issued the Notification under Section 3 of the Act vide S.O.<\/p>\n
1076 dated 12th October 1972, to controvert the fact that at<\/p>\n
the time of decision under Section 10(2) of the Act there<\/p>\n
was no notification under Section 3 of the Act. In view of<\/p>\n
the notification filed by the respondents, the contention of<\/p>\n
the appellant about the notification having been not issued<\/p>\n
at the time of deciding the objection under Section 10(2) of<\/p>\n
the Act is of no avail and this objection of the appellant is<\/p>\n
not sustainable in law.\n<\/p>\n
          10. It was next contended that the case was heard<\/p>\n
on 14th March 1975,       the appellant and the respondents<\/p>\n
were present, the objection of the respondents was heard,
\n                    11<\/span><\/p>\n
the next date of hearing was fixed on 2nd April 1975 and<\/p>\n
the direction was given by the Consolidation Officer for<\/p>\n
production of the documents. It will be relevant to mention<\/p>\n
that the Consolidation Officer fixed the next date of hearing<\/p>\n
on 2nd April 1975 but it appears from the record that the<\/p>\n
order of rejection was passed on 22nd May 1975 without<\/p>\n
fixing any date of hearing. From the said order it appears<\/p>\n
that the case was rejected only on the ground that the<\/p>\n
appellant did not produce the supporting documents to<\/p>\n
substantiate his case. The appellant at this stage has<\/p>\n
contended that the order was illegal passed on a date when<\/p>\n
the case was not fixed for hearing and, as such, this order<\/p>\n
cannot be a bar for filing objection under Section 10B of<\/p>\n
the Act.\n<\/p>\n
           11. The next contention has been raised       that<\/p>\n
the Revisional authority without considering the materials<\/p>\n
on the records and without deciding the title of the parties,<\/p>\n
rejected the application only on the ground that as already<\/p>\n
the application under Section 10(2) of the Act was rejected<\/p>\n
in the year 1975 and after 10 years, there was no subsequent<\/p>\n
change of event,    the application under Section 10B of the<\/p>\n
Act was not maintainable. The revisional authority ought to
\n                  12<\/span><\/p>\n
have decided the case looking into the merits and the<\/p>\n
contention of the parties, merely because        there was<\/p>\n
rejection of the application under Section 10(2) of the Act<\/p>\n
and that, too, without any consideration by a cryptic order,<\/p>\n
it cannot be a ground for rejecting the application under<\/p>\n
Section 10B of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
          12. In rebuttal, the respondents have stated that<\/p>\n
the writ petition was not maintainable as there was a<\/p>\n
suppression of fact. The appellant did not mention that the<\/p>\n
earlier application filed under Section 10(2) of the Act was<\/p>\n
rejected in the year 1975 and in support of the contention<\/p>\n
relied on the judgments reported in the case of Prestige<\/p>\n
Lights Ltd. V. State Bank of India, (2007)8 SCC 449,Para-<\/p>\n
33 which is as under:\n<\/p>\n
              Para-33: It is thus clear that though the<\/p>\n
       appellant Company had approached the High Court<\/p>\n
       under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not<\/p>\n
       candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High<\/p>\n
       Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary<\/p>\n
       jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.<\/p>\n
       Over and above, a court of law is also a court of<\/p>\n
       equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that
\n                  13<\/span><\/p>\n
       when a party approaches a High Court, he must<\/p>\n
       place all the facts before the Court without any<\/p>\n
       reservation. If there is suppression of material facts<\/p>\n
       on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have<\/p>\n
       been placed before the Court, the writ court may<\/p>\n
       refuse to entertain the petition and       dismiss it<\/p>\n
       without entering into merits of the matter”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            13. Reliance was also placed upon the case of<\/p>\n
K.D.Sharma v. Sail, reported in (2008)12 SCC 481, Para 38<\/p>\n
& 39, the Court has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
               Para: 38 :The above principles have been<\/p>\n
        accepted in our legal system also. As per settled<\/p>\n
        law, the party who invokes the extraordinary<\/p>\n
        jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a<\/p>\n
        High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is<\/p>\n
        supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must<\/p>\n
        disclose all material facts without any reservation<\/p>\n
        even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed<\/p>\n
        to play “hide and seek” or to “pick and choose” the<\/p>\n
        facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep<\/p>\n
        back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The<\/p>\n
        very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in
\n          14<\/span><\/p>\n
disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If<\/p>\n
material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very<\/p>\n
functioning of writ courts and exercise would<\/p>\n
become impossible. The petitioner must disclose<\/p>\n
all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought<\/p>\n
without any qualification. This is because “the<\/p>\n
court knows law but not facts”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Para: 39: If the         primary object     as<\/p>\n
highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs is<\/p>\n
kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with<\/p>\n
candid facts and “clean breast” cannot hold a writ<\/p>\n
of the court with “soiled hands”. Suppression or<\/p>\n
concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It<\/p>\n
is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or<\/p>\n
misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable<\/p>\n
and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does<\/p>\n
not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly<\/p>\n
but states them in a distorted manner and misleads<\/p>\n
the court, the court has inherent power in order to<\/p>\n
protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process<\/p>\n
to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed<\/p>\n
further with the examination of the case on merits.
\n                    15<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         If the court does not reject the petition on that<\/p>\n
         ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In<\/p>\n
         fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for<\/p>\n
         contempt of court for abusing the process of the<\/p>\n
         court”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          14. Now the           objection with regard to<\/p>\n
suppression of material fact raised by the respondent<\/p>\n
against the appellant is to be decided. In this connection<\/p>\n
before relying upon         the judgments cited by the<\/p>\n
respondents, it has to be examined as to whether there was<\/p>\n
really suppression of fact by the appellant or not in relation<\/p>\n
to the fact that there was no averment made in the writ<\/p>\n
petition about the decision rendered by the consolidation<\/p>\n
authority ten years before under Section 10(2) of the Act. In<\/p>\n
Para-34 of the writ petition, the writ-petitioner\/appellant<\/p>\n
has specifically mentioned about the Consolidation Case<\/p>\n
No. 20\/6232 of 1974. In that paragraph he has stated that as<\/p>\n
there was no notification under Section 3 of the Act, the<\/p>\n
decision rendered by the consolidation authority has no<\/p>\n
value in law, as the consolidation authority had no<\/p>\n
jurisdiction to decide any objection filed under Section<\/p>\n
10(2) of the Act. In view of this fact, specifically stated in
\n                   16<\/span><\/p>\n
the writ petition and the fact that the       Director, while<\/p>\n
deciding the case has considered the objection of the<\/p>\n
respondents about the rejection under Section 10(2) of the<\/p>\n
Act,   the objection of suppression of material fact is not<\/p>\n
sustainable and the same is rejected. The judgments relied<\/p>\n
on by respondents have no application in the present case.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          15. Another point that has been raised by the<\/p>\n
respondents is that in view of the fact that there was an<\/p>\n
earlier decision of the Consolidation court under Section<\/p>\n
10(2) of the Act which remains unchallenged and, as such,<\/p>\n
the subsequent application under Section 10B of the Act<\/p>\n
raising the same issue is certainly hit by the principle of res<\/p>\n
judicata and has relied upon two judgments of the Hon\u201fble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court      (1) State of West Bengal Vs.. Hemant<\/p>\n
Kumar (AIR 1966 SC 1061) and (2) Sulochana Amma v.<\/p>\n
Narayanan Nair (AIR 1994 SC 152). On the other hand the<\/p>\n
appellant has controverted this argument of the respondents<\/p>\n
on the ground that there was no decision rendered by the<\/p>\n
Consolidation authority while deciding the application u\/s<\/p>\n
10(2) of the Act and, as such, as there was no decision on<\/p>\n
merit, the application under Section 10B of the Act was<\/p>\n
maintainable in view of the fact that after the abatement of
\n                   17<\/span><\/p>\n
suit on remand before the appellate authority he had no<\/p>\n
other forum to raise the issues before the Consolidation<\/p>\n
authority except under Section 10B of the Act on the basis<\/p>\n
of such subsequent event.\n<\/p>\n
          16. Now, in respect of applicability        of    res<\/p>\n
judicata, it will be relevant to examine the statutory<\/p>\n
provision and the relevant judgments relating to this issue.<\/p>\n
Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the<\/p>\n
applicability of res judicata and, as such, it will be relevant<\/p>\n
to quote the same:\n<\/p>\n
               Section 11: Res judicata – No court shall try<\/p>\n
         any suit or issue in which the matter directly or<\/p>\n
         substantially in issue has been directly or<\/p>\n
         substantially in issue in a former suit between the<\/p>\n
         same parties, or between parties under whom they<\/p>\n
         or any of them claim, litigating under the same<\/p>\n
         title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent<\/p>\n
         suit or the suit in which such issue has been<\/p>\n
         subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally<\/p>\n
         decided by such Court.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Explanation-I – The expression “former<\/p>\n
         suit” shall denote a suit which has been decided
\n          18<\/span><\/p>\n
prior to the suit in question whether or not it was<\/p>\n
instituted prior thereto.\n<\/p>\n
       Explanation-II – For the purposes of this<\/p>\n
section, the competence of a Court shall be<\/p>\n
determined irrespective or any provisions as to a<\/p>\n
right of appeal from the decision of such Court.<\/p>\n
       Explanation-III – The matter above referred<\/p>\n
to must in the former suit have been alleged by one<\/p>\n
party and either denied or admitted, expressly or<\/p>\n
impliedly, by the other.\n<\/p>\n
       Explanation-IV – Any matter which might<\/p>\n
and ought to have been made ground of defence or<\/p>\n
attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have<\/p>\n
been a matter directly or substantially in issue in<\/p>\n
such suit.\n<\/p>\n
       Explanation-V – Any relief claimed in the<\/p>\n
plaint, which is not expressly granted by the<\/p>\n
decree, shall, for the purposes of this section, be<\/p>\n
deemed to have been refused.\n<\/p>\n
       Explanation-VI – Where persons litigate<\/p>\n
bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private<\/p>\n
right claimed in common for themselves and
\n                  19<\/span><\/p>\n
        others, all persons interested in such right shall, for<\/p>\n
        the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim<\/p>\n
        under the persons so litigating.\n<\/p>\n
              Explanation-VII -The provisions of this<\/p>\n
        section shall apply to a proceeding for the<\/p>\n
        execution of a decree and references in this section<\/p>\n
        to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed<\/p>\n
        as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the<\/p>\n
        execution of the decree, question arises in such<\/p>\n
        proceeding and a former proceeding for the<\/p>\n
        execution of that decree.\n<\/p>\n
              Explanation- VIII – An issue heard and<\/p>\n
        finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction,<\/p>\n
        competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res<\/p>\n
        judicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that<\/p>\n
        such Court of limited jurisdiction was not<\/p>\n
        competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in<\/p>\n
        which such issue has been subsequently raised”.<\/p>\n
         17. On consideration of wordings which have<\/p>\n
been used in Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure which<\/p>\n
specifically provides that if in the former suit, the same<\/p>\n
issue has been raised and decided then if in a subsequent
\n                   20<\/span><\/p>\n
suit the same issue has been raised, in that circumstance, the<\/p>\n
judgments rendered in a former suit will act as res judicata<\/p>\n
for the subsequent suit.\n<\/p>\n
          18.In this connection we will have to first decide<\/p>\n
as to whether the order passed under Section 10(2) of the<\/p>\n
Act amounts to a decision on the merit of the issues or not.<\/p>\n
Unless the judgment has dealt with the merits, considered<\/p>\n
the issues and decided the same, it will be very difficult to<\/p>\n
subscribe to the view that the mere rejection of the<\/p>\n
application without deciding the case on merits will operate<\/p>\n
as a res judicata for a subsequent suit or proceeding. It is a<\/p>\n
fact that the application under Section 10(2) of the Act was<\/p>\n
rejected merely on the ground that the supporting materials<\/p>\n
were not produced by the appellant. As noticed and<\/p>\n
discussed earlier, the application under Section 10(2) of the<\/p>\n
Act was actually one falling under Section 10B of the Act<\/p>\n
and was filed prematurely in 1974 on the sole basis of<\/p>\n
Munsif\u201fs judgment which was reversed in appeal in January<\/p>\n
1975. Both the parties, till 1984 had accepted that the issues<\/p>\n
in the suit lay within the jurisdiction of the civil court.<\/p>\n
Hence, they had to wait till abatement of the suit in 1984,<\/p>\n
before they could move the Consolidation authorities only
\n                  21<\/span><\/p>\n
under Section 10B of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
          19. Now let us examine the judgment cited by the<\/p>\n
respondents in support of the contention of res judicata. The<\/p>\n
respondents in support of their contention have relied on the<\/p>\n
judgment in the case of State of West Bengal Vs.. Hemant<\/p>\n
Kumar (supra). Para-14, which is as under:<\/p>\n
                      “Para-14   Before     proceeding with<\/p>\n
               these arguments in detail, we can dispose of<\/p>\n
               second     contention   very       shortly.   This<\/p>\n
               argument     proceeds   on     a     fundamental<\/p>\n
               misconception, as it     seeks to equate an<\/p>\n
               incorrect decision with a decision rendered<\/p>\n
               without jurisdiction. A wrong decision by a<\/p>\n
               court having jurisdiction is as much binding<\/p>\n
               between the parties as a right one and may<\/p>\n
               be superseded only by appeals to higher<\/p>\n
               tribunals or other procedure like review<\/p>\n
               which the law provides. The learned judges<\/p>\n
               of the High Court who rendered the decision<\/p>\n
               on 4.4.1952 had ample jurisdiction to decide<\/p>\n
               the case and the fact that their decision was<\/p>\n
               on the merits erroneous as seen from the
\n                  22<\/span><\/p>\n
               later judgment of this Court, does not render<\/p>\n
               it any the less final and binding between the<\/p>\n
               parties before the Court. There is, thus, no<\/p>\n
               substance in this contention. The decision of<\/p>\n
               the High Court dated 4.4.1952 bound the<\/p>\n
               parties and its legal effect remained the<\/p>\n
               same whether the reasons for the decision be<\/p>\n
               sound or not.”\n<\/p>\n
          20. On reading of Para-14, it is evident that the<\/p>\n
word \u201edecision\u201f has been used in a sense which<\/p>\n
presupposes that there should be an adjudication of the lis<\/p>\n
between the parties. Of course, it cannot be said that a<\/p>\n
wrong decision of a court having jurisdiction shall not be<\/p>\n
binding between the parties, but it should be a decision. In<\/p>\n
our view, in the facts of the case,     the rejection of the<\/p>\n
application purportedly under Section 10(2) of the Act,<\/p>\n
cannot be, by any     stretch of imagination,   said to be a<\/p>\n
binding decision on any issue. The respondents have relied<\/p>\n
on another judgment in the case of Solochana Amma v.<\/p>\n
Narayanan Nair reported (Supra) Para-8, which runs as<\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n
                      “Para-8:   Shri   Sukumaran    further
\n     23<\/span><\/p>\n
contended that the remedy of injunction is an<\/p>\n
equitable relief and in equity, the doctrine of<\/p>\n
res judicata cannot be extended to a decree of<\/p>\n
a court of limited pecuniary jurisdiction. We<\/p>\n
find no force in the contention. It is settled<\/p>\n
law that in a suit for injunction when title is in<\/p>\n
issue for the purpose of granting injunction,<\/p>\n
the issue directly and substantially arises in<\/p>\n
that suit between the parties. When the same<\/p>\n
issue is put in issue in a later suit, based on<\/p>\n
title between the same parties or their privies<\/p>\n
in a subsequent suit the decree in the<\/p>\n
injunction suit equally operates as res<\/p>\n
judicata. In this case, when the right and<\/p>\n
interest of the respondent were questioned in<\/p>\n
his suit against K, the validity of the<\/p>\n
settlement deed and the terms thereof were<\/p>\n
gone into. The civil court found that K<\/p>\n
acquitted life estate under the settlement deed<\/p>\n
executed by his wife conferring vested<\/p>\n
remainder in the respondent and on its basis<\/p>\n
the respondent was declared entitled to an
\n                  24<\/span><\/p>\n
             injunction against K who was prohibited not<\/p>\n
             only from committing acts of waste, but also<\/p>\n
             from alienating the properties in favour of<\/p>\n
             third parties. The later suit of injunction to<\/p>\n
             which the appellant was a party also binds the<\/p>\n
             appellant. Therefore, even the decree founded<\/p>\n
             on equitable relief in which the issue was<\/p>\n
             directly or substantially in issue and decided,<\/p>\n
             and attained finality, would operate as res<\/p>\n
             judicata in a subsequent suit based on title<\/p>\n
             where     the   same     issue     directly   and<\/p>\n
             substantially arises between the parties as the<\/p>\n
             appellant is deriving title from K who was a<\/p>\n
             party in the former suit is also hit by the<\/p>\n
             doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of<\/p>\n
             the Transfer of Property Act.”\n<\/p>\n
           21. In this case, the issue raised related to<\/p>\n
Explanation-8 to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure<\/p>\n
which provides that judgment in a case        heard and finally<\/p>\n
decided by a court of limited jurisdiction shall operate as<\/p>\n
res judicata. In this sub-clause also the word \u201edecision\u201f has<\/p>\n
been used and in that context the Hon\u201fble Supreme Court in
\n                   25<\/span><\/p>\n
Para-8 of the said judgment has stated that      res judicata is<\/p>\n
also applicable to the judgments of a court of limited<\/p>\n
jurisdiction.   Only when       there is a “decision” by a<\/p>\n
competent court of limited jurisdiction, the parties cannot<\/p>\n
be vexed for the       second time on     an issue which has<\/p>\n
already been decided between the parties. In this case it is<\/p>\n
completely clear that before the consolidation Officer the<\/p>\n
issue of title was not raised nor the consolidation authority<\/p>\n
has decided any issue, rather it was a simple rejection of the<\/p>\n
application for non filing of required documents. In that<\/p>\n
context, mere rejection only on the ground of not filing the<\/p>\n
supporting documents will not attract the bar for the<\/p>\n
subsequent proceeding under Section 10-B of the Act as<\/p>\n
there is no decision on merits of the case. We are of the<\/p>\n
opinion that in the present case, res judicata or constructive<\/p>\n
res judicata is not applicable. This view is supported by the<\/p>\n
judgments reported in the case of Krishan Lal Vs. State of J<\/p>\n
&K      reported in (1994)4 SCC 422 . In Para-12 of the<\/p>\n
aforesaid judgment, the Hon\u201fble Supreme Court has clearly<\/p>\n
stated that there should be a decision on merit as regards the<\/p>\n
grievance of the parties. Only in that situation, the principle<\/p>\n
of res judicata or constructive res judicata will apply. It will
\n                  26<\/span><\/p>\n
be apt to quote Para-12 of the aforesaid judgment.<\/p>\n
          “Para-12: Insofar as the second ground given by<\/p>\n
               the High Court – the same being bar of res<\/p>\n
               judicata – it is clear from what has been<\/p>\n
               noted above, that there was no decision on<\/p>\n
               merits as regards the grievance of the<\/p>\n
               appellant;       and so, the principle of res<\/p>\n
               judicata has no application. The mere fact<\/p>\n
               that the learned single judge while disposing<\/p>\n
               of the writ petition No. 23 of 78 had<\/p>\n
               observed that:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                             “This    syndrome     of errors,<\/p>\n
                      omissions and oddities, cannot be<\/p>\n
                      explained on any hypothesis other<\/p>\n
                      than the one that there is something<\/p>\n
                      fishy in the petitioner\u201fs version.”<\/p>\n
               which observations have been relied upon<\/p>\n
               by the High Court in holding that the suit<\/p>\n
               was barred by res judicata do not at all make<\/p>\n
               out a case of applicability of the principle of<\/p>\n
               res judicata. The conclusion of the High<\/p>\n
               Court on this score is in deed baffling to us,
\n                    27<\/span><\/p>\n
                because, for res judicata to operate the<\/p>\n
                involved issue must have been “heard and<\/p>\n
                finally decided”. There was no decision at<\/p>\n
                all on the merit of the grievance of the<\/p>\n
                petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition and,<\/p>\n
                therefore, to take a view that the decision in<\/p>\n
                earlier proceeding operated as res judicata<\/p>\n
                was absolutely erroneous, not speak of its<\/p>\n
                being uncharitable.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           On consideration of this judgment, we are<\/p>\n
fortified with the view that as there was no decision<\/p>\n
rendered by the consolidation authority on the lis in<\/p>\n
between the parties and, as such, it is very difficult to apply<\/p>\n
the principle of res judicata.\n<\/p>\n
           22. In support of the contention that res judicata<\/p>\n
will not be applicable in a subsequent proceeding under<\/p>\n
Section 10B of the Act, the appellant has relied on the case<\/p>\n
of Lonankutty v. Thomman, AIR 1976 SC 1645 (Para-15)<\/p>\n
which is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                “Para:15: This contention is well-founded<\/p>\n
         and must be accepted. By Section 11, Code of<\/p>\n
         Civil Procedure, in so far as relevant, no court shall
\n                  28<\/span><\/p>\n
        try any suit or issue in which the matter directly<\/p>\n
        and substantially in issue has been directly and<\/p>\n
        substantially in issue in a former suit between the<\/p>\n
        same parties and      has been heard and finally<\/p>\n
        decided. Explanation I to the section provides that<\/p>\n
        the expression \u201eformer suit\u201f shall denote a suit<\/p>\n
        which has been decided prior to the suit in question<\/p>\n
        whether or not, it was instituted prior thereto. The<\/p>\n
        only other aspect of the rule of res judicata which<\/p>\n
        on the facts before us must be borne in mind is that<\/p>\n
        it is not enough to constitute a matter res judicata<\/p>\n
        that it was in issue in the former suit. It is further<\/p>\n
        necessary that it must have been in issue directly<\/p>\n
        and substantially. And a matter cannot be said to<\/p>\n
        have been “directly and substantially” in issue in a<\/p>\n
        suit unless it was alleged by one party and denied<\/p>\n
        or admitted, either expressly or by necessary<\/p>\n
        implication, by the other”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          23. In view of the above discussions, the issue of<\/p>\n
res judicata in the present proceeding arising under Section<\/p>\n
10B of the Act is not sustainable in view of the fact that<\/p>\n
there was no decision rendered by the court below, while
\n                   29<\/span><\/p>\n
rejecting the application under Section 10(2) of the Act.<\/p>\n
          24. Let us examine the issue from another angle.<\/p>\n
It is apparent from the order under Section 10(2) of the Act<\/p>\n
that the consolidation authority has passed a cryptic order<\/p>\n
without addressing the issues or deciding the same. The<\/p>\n
consolidation authority    has jurisdiction to decide the title<\/p>\n
between the parties. It is legally expected from such<\/p>\n
authority that while rendering a decision it must “assign<\/p>\n
the reason” for coming to its own decision. The Hon\u201fble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court repeatedly has been giving command that<\/p>\n
the judicial, quashi judicial or the court of limited<\/p>\n
jurisdiction, while deciding an issue must assign reasons for<\/p>\n
coming to a conclusion. The reason is a link in between<\/p>\n
the maker of the decision and the decision which gives an<\/p>\n
opportunity to the higher authority to assess the mind of the<\/p>\n
decision maker,        on what basis the decision has been<\/p>\n
rendered. The Hon\u201fble Supreme Court in the judgment<\/p>\n
rendered in the case of Som Datt Builders Ltd.Vs. The State<\/p>\n
of Kerala reported in (2009)10 SCC 259 (Para-21) has<\/p>\n
relied on another judgment reported in the case of Union of<\/p>\n
India Vs. Mohan Lal Capoor and specifically stated that the<\/p>\n
reasons are links between the materials on which certain
\n                  30<\/span><\/p>\n
conclusion are based and actual conclusions. It has further<\/p>\n
been held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
               “Para-21: “In Union of India v. Mohan Lal<\/p>\n
               Capoor<\/a> this Court said: (SCC 554, Para-28)<\/p>\n
                          “28…       Reasons   are   the        links<\/p>\n
                          between the materials on which<\/p>\n
                          certain conclusions are based and<\/p>\n
                          the actual conclusions”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Para:22. In Woolcombers of India Ltd. V.<\/p>\n
               Workers<\/a>\u201f Union, this Court stated (SCC pp<\/p>\n
               320-21, para 5)<\/p>\n
                        “5…. The giving of reasons in support<\/p>\n
               of their conclusions by judicial and quashi<\/p>\n
               judicial authorities when exercising initial<\/p>\n
               jurisdiction is essential for various reasons.<\/p>\n
               First, it is calculated to prevent unconscious,<\/p>\n
               unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the<\/p>\n
               conclusions the very search for reasons will<\/p>\n
               put the authority on the alert and minimize<\/p>\n
               the chances of unconscious infiltration of<\/p>\n
               personal       bias     or   unfairness     in    the<\/p>\n
               conclusion . The authority will adduce
\n                    31<\/span><\/p>\n
                reasons which will be regarded as fair and<\/p>\n
                legitimate by a reasonable man and will<\/p>\n
                discard         irrelevant   or   extraneous<\/p>\n
                considerations.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                Para-23: In S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of India<\/p>\n
                the Constitution Bench held that recording<\/p>\n
                of reasons<\/p>\n
                        “(i) Guarantee consideration by the<\/p>\n
                authority; (ii) introduce clarity in the<\/p>\n
                decisions; and (iii) minimize chances of<\/p>\n
                arbitrariness     in decision-making”   (SCC<\/p>\n
                p.612 para 35)”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            In this connection, following judgments are<\/p>\n
relevant:\n<\/p>\n
            AIR 1976 SC 1785 (The Siemens Cimens<\/p>\n
            Engineering and MFG Co. Vs. Union of India)<\/p>\n
            AIR 2010 SC 1105( G.Valli Kumari Vs. Andhra<\/p>\n
            Education Society) (Para-13)<\/p>\n
            AIR 2010 SC 1285(Secretary & Curator, Victoria<\/p>\n
            Memorial Hall .Vs. Gantantrik Nagarik Society)<\/p>\n
            (Para 31 to 34)<\/p>\n
            (2010)9 SCC 486 (Maya Devi Vs. Raj Kumar
\n                   32<\/span><\/p>\n
          Batra (Para-22 to 27)<\/p>\n
          (2007)10 SCC 712 Union of India vs. Jai Prakash<\/p>\n
          Singh (Para-6)<\/p>\n
          On the<\/a> strength of the aforesaid judgments of the<\/p>\n
Hon\u201fble Supreme Court, it is held that since no reason has<\/p>\n
been assigned by the consolidation authority while rejecting<\/p>\n
the case under Section 10(2) of the Act, hence the order<\/p>\n
cannot act as an obstacle to the subsequent proceeding<\/p>\n
under Section 10B of the Act.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          25. We have to examine further, as to whether the<\/p>\n
subsequent proceeding under Section 10B of the Act was<\/p>\n
liable to be rejected at the very outset or ought to have been<\/p>\n
decided by the revisional authority on its own merits. In this<\/p>\n
connection, Section 10A of the Act also comes in the way<\/p>\n
of the appellant which talks of bar to the objection which is<\/p>\n
as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                       “Section 10A: Bar to objection- No<\/p>\n
               question in respect of any entry made in the<\/p>\n
               map or registers prepared under Section 9 or<\/p>\n
               the statement of principles prepared under<\/p>\n
               Section 9A relating to the consolidation<\/p>\n
               area, which might or ought to have been
\n                  33<\/span><\/p>\n
               raised under Section 10 but has not been<\/p>\n
               raised, shall not be raised or heard at any<\/p>\n
               subsequent     stage   of   the   consolidation<\/p>\n
               proceeding.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          Section 10B deals with a situation of subsequent<\/p>\n
events which is as follows;\n<\/p>\n
               Section-10B: Decision of matters relating to<\/p>\n
        charges and transaction affecting rights or interest<\/p>\n
        recorded in revised records -(1) All matters<\/p>\n
        relating to changes and transfers        affecting any<\/p>\n
        rights or interest recorded in the register of land<\/p>\n
        published under sub-section (1) of Section 10 for<\/p>\n
        which cause of action had not arisen when<\/p>\n
        proceedings under Section 8 and 9 were started or<\/p>\n
        were in progressed may be raised before the<\/p>\n
        Consolidation Officer within 30 days of cause of<\/p>\n
        action, but not later than the date of notification<\/p>\n
        under Section 26A or under sub-section (1) of<\/p>\n
        Section 4A.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (2) The provisions of Sections 8 and 9 shall<\/p>\n
        mutatis mutandis apply to the hearing and decision<\/p>\n
        of any matter raised under sub-section (1) as if it
\n                   34<\/span><\/p>\n
         were a matter raised under the aforesaid section.<\/p>\n
         Section 10B deals with a situation which had not<\/p>\n
         occurred while the proceeding under Section 10(1)<\/p>\n
         was in operation. It deals with a subsequent event”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            26. Now it has to be seen at what stage the<\/p>\n
application under Section 10B of the Act was filed. The<\/p>\n
application under Section 10B of the Act was filed<\/p>\n
subsequent to abatement of the suit at the appellate stage<\/p>\n
after the case was remanded by this Court          in a second<\/p>\n
appeal. It is a fact that in the civil suit both the parties had<\/p>\n
raised their claim of title, one party placed reliance on the<\/p>\n
registered sale deed of 1917 whereas the other            party<\/p>\n
disputed the enforceability of the sale-deed. The abatement<\/p>\n
application was filed by the respondents after remand made<\/p>\n
by this Court in the second appeal, before the appellate<\/p>\n
Court. Soon after the       abatement order of 1984,         the<\/p>\n
appellant    filed the application under Section 10B of the<\/p>\n
Act. In this view of the matter, the application under<\/p>\n
Section 10B of the Act was amply justified by the<\/p>\n
subsequent events. Hence, the revisional authority ought<\/p>\n
not have refused to decide the issues raised in the<\/p>\n
application merely on the ground that the application was a
\n                   35<\/span><\/p>\n
subsequent application. More so, when the order      rejecting<\/p>\n
earlier application labelled under Section 10(2) of the Act<\/p>\n
was no decision in the eyes of law so as to create the bar of<\/p>\n
Res-judicata.    In our view, the order passed by the<\/p>\n
revisional authority refusing to decide the highly disputed<\/p>\n
question of title between the parties is bad in law. It ought<\/p>\n
to have decided the case on merits as the revisional<\/p>\n
authority under Section 35 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
          27. After this appeal was heard and judgment<\/p>\n
reserved, learned counsel for the respondents served a list<\/p>\n
of two cases, namely, 1997(1) BLJ 921 (Hari Narayan<\/p>\n
Singh and others Vs.     State of Bihar) and 2009(2) PLJR<\/p>\n
799 (Sriram Tiwary Vs.       State of Bihar and others). On<\/p>\n
perusal of the judgments reported        in the case of Hari<\/p>\n
Narayan Singh (supra), it appears that the issue was raised<\/p>\n
with regard to the entertaining the petition under Section<\/p>\n
10B of the Act when no objection was raised under Section<\/p>\n
10(2) of the Act, vis-\u00e0-vis the power of revision under<\/p>\n
Section 35 of the Act. The fact of that case were quite<\/p>\n
different to the facts of the case in hand. In the present<\/p>\n
case, as noticed earlier, a civil suit was pending from before<\/p>\n
the consolidation proceedings till abatement was sought by
\n                   36<\/span><\/p>\n
the respondents and allowed in 1984. As per joint stand of<\/p>\n
the parties, jurisdiction over the issues relating to title lay<\/p>\n
with the civil court and hence the abatement order, which<\/p>\n
was a subsequent event created the required cause of action<\/p>\n
for moving the authority under the only available provision,<\/p>\n
i.e., Section 10B of the Act. Law favours an interpretation<\/p>\n
that will not leave a party without a remedy when he has a<\/p>\n
cause of action. In the case noticed above, the entry made<\/p>\n
in the revisional survey was never challenged before any<\/p>\n
authority or any civil court. In that case, after preparation of<\/p>\n
record of rights under Section 10 of the Act, no challenge<\/p>\n
was made. Later on an application under Section 10(B) of<\/p>\n
the Act was filed. In that context, this Court          held that<\/p>\n
when there was no objection under Section 10(2) of the Act<\/p>\n
and there was unchallenged entry in the revisional record of<\/p>\n
rights, the application under Section 10B of the Act was not<\/p>\n
maintainable. Thus the facts of that case and the case at<\/p>\n
hand are quite different and as such, the issue decided under<\/p>\n
that case will not be applicable to the present case.<\/p>\n
          28. “The other judgment in the case of Sriram<\/p>\n
Tiwary (supra) which has been            relied upon by the<\/p>\n
respondents is a Single Bench judgment relying upon the
\n                    37<\/span><\/p>\n
judgment in the case of Hari Narayan Singh (supra) and<\/p>\n
following the same. The facts of Sriram Tiwary\u201fs case<\/p>\n
were also quite different to the present case. In the case of<\/p>\n
Sriram Tiwary (supra), there was no title suit filed by the<\/p>\n
parties and   no    abatement. Much     later, an application<\/p>\n
under Section 10B of the Act was filed, without raising any<\/p>\n
objection under Section 10(2) of the Act. There was no<\/p>\n
subsequent development providing cause of action. In the<\/p>\n
present case, the parties are completely on litigating terms<\/p>\n
from before vesting of Zamindari, as noted      hereinabove.<\/p>\n
Even after vesting, a title suit for declaration of title and<\/p>\n
confirmation of possession was filed which was abated later<\/p>\n
on at the appellate stage creating a cause of action. Thus,<\/p>\n
this case also does not help the respondents.<\/p>\n
          29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the<\/p>\n
judgment and order under appeal and also the order dated<\/p>\n
2nd August 2000 passed in Revision Case No. 26110 of<\/p>\n
1986 are set aside and the matter is remanded to the<\/p>\n
Revisional authority under the Act for fresh hearing and<\/p>\n
decision on merits in accordance with law and our decision<\/p>\n
that application under Section 10B is maintainable. It is<\/p>\n
made clear that this Court has not gone into merits of the
\n                                            38<\/span><\/p>\n
                      matter in controversy.\n<\/p>\n
                                30. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent<\/p>\n
                      only. There shall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                        (Shivaji Pandey, J)\n\n\nShiva Kirti Singh,J             I agree.\n\n                                                       (Shiva Kirti Singh,J)\n\n\n High Court, Patna\nDt. 8th Sept. 2011\n    A.F.R.\/Jay\/\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court Hridya Nand Pandey vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 8 September, 2011 Author: Shiva Kirti Singh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.366 of 2004. IN (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 7915\/2000) Hridya Nand Pandey son of late Ram Briksh Pandey, Resident of village Milki Miyazipur […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-104292","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHridya Nand Pandey vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 8 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hridya-nand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-8-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hridya Nand Pandey vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 8 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hridya-nand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-8-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-13T05:29:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"35 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hridya-nand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-8-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hridya-nand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-8-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hridya Nand Pandey vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 8 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-13T05:29:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hridya-nand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-8-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":6765,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hridya-nand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-8-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hridya-nand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-8-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hridya-nand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-8-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Hridya Nand Pandey vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 8 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-13T05:29:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hridya-nand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-8-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hridya-nand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-8-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hridya-nand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-8-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hridya Nand Pandey vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 8 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Hridya Nand Pandey vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 8 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hridya-nand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-8-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hridya Nand Pandey vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 8 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hridya-nand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-8-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-13T05:29:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"35 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hridya-nand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-8-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hridya-nand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-8-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hridya Nand Pandey vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 8 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-13T05:29:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hridya-nand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-8-september-2011"},"wordCount":6765,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hridya-nand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-8-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hridya-nand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-8-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hridya-nand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-8-september-2011","name":"Hridya Nand Pandey vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 8 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-13T05:29:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hridya-nand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-8-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hridya-nand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-8-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hridya-nand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-8-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hridya Nand Pandey vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 8 September, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/104292","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=104292"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/104292\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=104292"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=104292"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=104292"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}