Jawahar Lal Gupta @ Sah v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14648 of 2008 ======================================================
1. Jawahar Lal Gupta @ Sah Son of Late Chandrika Sah Resident of Village- Bhashaula, P.O. & P.S.- Kudra, District- Kaimur- Bhabhua. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna, Land Development Bank Building, Patna.
3. The Deputy Director, Consolidation, Rohtas at Sasaram
4. The Consolidation Officer, Kudra, District- Kaimur- Bhabhua. 5 (a) Baban Singh 5 (b) Dadan Singh 5(c). Kaushlendra Singh 5(d) Rana Pratap Singh All sons of late Smt. Madhuri Devi, Wife of late Shri Ram Byash Singh All Residents of Village- Bhashaula, P.S.- kudra, District- Kaimur(Bhabhua).
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.
For the pvt. Respondent/s : Mr. Shashi Shekharr Dvivedi, Sr. advocate Mr. Parth Gaurav, advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 18-01-2018 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Dwivedi, the learned counsel for respondent No. 5(a) to 5(d) is present.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 20.08.2008 passed in Consolidation Revision case No. 74 of 2008. The petitioner further seeks quashing of the order dated 29.12.1988/26.04.1990/04.05.1990 passed in Objection case No. 2 of 1988-89.
The Consolidation Officer corrected the area of plot No. 1534 and 1536 of survey Khata No. 31. The father of the petitioner purchased 62 decimals of land of Khata No. 1534 and 1536 but the area in revisional survey was recorded as 64
Patna High Court CWJC No.14648 of 2008 (14) dt.18-01-2018 2/2 decimals. The respondent No.5 made petition for correction of area of plot No. 1534 and 1536 owned by the petitioner and of revisional plot No. 1532 and 1533. The Consolidation Officer after getting the land measured found that area of plot No. 1534 and 1536 is only 62 decimal but due to inadvertence the area of the aforesaid plots was measured as 64 decimals and this mistake was corrected by the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner filed revision petition against the aforesaid order. The Director, Consolidation found that the area of plot No. 1534 and 1536 is only 62 decimal and, therefore, he dismissed the revision petition. I find that there is no illegality in the impugned order of the Director, Consolidation as father of the petitioner purchased only 62 decimals of land by virtue of registered sale deed and the area which was wrongly mentioned as 64 decimal has been corrected.
Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned orders. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U