Ram Ekwal Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18794 of 2016 ======================================================
1. Ram Ekwal Singh S/o late Raj Nandan Singh Resident of Village- Jamin Mathia, P.S.- Meenapur, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Land and Revenue Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Bihar Land Tribunal through its Member Administrator, Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Muzaffarpur.
4. The Joint Director Consolidation, Muzaffarpur.
5. The Assistant Consolidation Officer, Meenapur, Muzaffapur.
6. Raj Kishore Singh Son of Dhaneshwar Singh Resident of Village-Jamin Mathia, P.S. Meenapur, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pradhan Murli Manohar Prasad Mr. Raju Kumar Goswami Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Birendra Prasad Singh, A.C. to S.C.19 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 24-08-2018 Heard both sides.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 14.09.2016 passed in B.L.T. Case No.542 of 2015 by which the case of the petitioner has been dismissed affirming the order dated 24.03.2008 passed by respondent No.4, Joint Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur in Consolidation Revision Case No.20 of 2008 setting aside the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer under Section 10(D) of the Consolidation Act. The relevant facts are that the petitioner filed a petition
before the Assistant Consolidation Officer to merge a portion of 6 decimals of land appertaining to Khesra No.596 from the north side to the south of Khesra No.597 along with the compromise petition said to have been duly signed by Raj Kishore Singh, respondent No.6 and on such, Assistant Consolidation Officer ordered for preparation of record of rights of Khesra No.597. The respondent No.6 came to know about the fraud committed by the petitioner and filed petition before the Joint Director, Consolidation in Consolidation Revision Case No.20 of 2008 and the Joint Director vide order dated 24.03.2008 set aside the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer holding that the petitioner filed a forged and fabricated compromise petition on the basis of which 6 decimals of land of Khesra No.596 was merged into Khesra No.597. The petitioner filed case before the B.L.T. and by the impugned order, Member, Administrative also dismissed the case of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compromise was held and both sides put signature on the compromise petition but later on, respondent No.6 resiled from the compromise but it appears from the order of B.L.T. as well as Joint Director, Consolidation that the signature of Raj Kishore Singh was forged by the petitioner and no compromise petition
was duly signed by the respondent No.6. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the B.L.T. Having considered the facts aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Saurabh/- U