Budhsen and Another vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—The challenge in this petition is to the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities holding that the Petitioners, who claim to have purchased the land from Smt. Bhawania on 19th October, 1965, had not acquired any title to the land, inasmuch as, Smt. Bhawania was the recorded Sirdar and that even before the Bhumidhari Sanad was given for which she had applied, she was dead and hence the sale deed could not have been executed. The Consolidation Authorities, therefore, found that since the Sanad had been issued after the death of Smt. Bhawania hence the sale deed could not be given effect to and the application moved by the Petitioners for mutation of their names was rejected.

The contesting Respondents No. 4 to 8 claimed succession through inheritance but their claim was also rejected and ultimately the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed an order that the land would vest in the Gaon Sabha by escheat It is this order which has been assailed before this Court.

The main ground taken by the Petitioners is that the application for grant of Bhumidhari Sanad had already been moved and that the order was also passed thereon on 12th October, 1965. It is undisputed that the Sanad was issued much thereafter on 18th July, 1966 and in between Smt. Bhawania died on 8th January, 1966. The matter had been taken up on 30th March, 2011 and noticing the Full Bench judgment in the case of Banshidhar Vs. Smt. Dhirjadbari and Others, the Respondents were called upon to obtain instructions particularly the Gaon Sabha.

The contesting Respondents No. 4 to 8 did not contest this petition. In spite of notice having been served the Gaon Sabha has also not filed any counter affidavit nor any learned Counsel has put in appearance to resist this writ petition. The matter has been taken up after 36 years of its institution.

The writ petition had been admitted on 27.10.1975 and an interim order was passed on the same day staying the dispossession of the Petitioners.

The law laid down by the Full Bench is categorically to the effect that once twenty times revenue is deposited for grant of Bhumidhari Sanad then the issuance of a Sanad is a mere ministerial act and would relate back to the date of deposit and passing of the order. The ratio of the Full Bench is clearly to the effect that the judicial process of grant of Sanad comes to an end after deposit of amount and passing of the order by the authority. In this petition, the Petitioner has taken a categorical stand that the deposit was made on 12th October, 1965 and an order was passed allowing the deposit to be made on the same day. The Sanad was to issue accordingly.

In view of the aforesaid uncontro-verted position, the Consolidation Authorities had erred in taking a view which is contrary to the ratio of Full Bench decision in the case of Bansidhar (supra).

In view of the aforesaid circumstances and the reasons stated herein above, the orders impugned herein are set aside.

The writ petition is allowed in the absence of the learned Counsel for the parties.