LexPARAS NATH RAI AND OTHERS versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 10 S.C.R. 732 PARAS NATH RAI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7234 of 2012) OCTOBER 5, 2012 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.) Land Laws - Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 - ss.3 and 4(c) - C Partition suit - Dismissed by civil court - Title appeal - During pendency thereof, notification issued u/s.3 of the 1956 Act - Consequence - Held: Once a notification has been published uls.3, every suit and proceeding in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land lying in areas or for declaration D or adjudication of any other rights in regard to which proceeding can or ought to be taken under the Act pending before any court or authority whether of the first instance or of appeal, reference or revision, shall, on order being passed in that behalf by the court or authority before whom such suit E or proceeding is pending shall stand abated with a view to ensure the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities remains unhampered and the said authorities are not obstructed by the proceedings in civil courts and their decisions are not impeded by the decisions of the civil courts - Nothing F remains to be adjudicated before the civil court - In the present case, title appeal was pending wht1n notification was issued u/s.3 of the 1956 Act, whereafter an application uls.4(c) of the 1956 Act was preferred to the effect that the appeat and the suit had abated by statutory operation of Jaw - It would have been advisable on the part of the appellate court to G record a finding that the entire proceeding of the civil suit stood abated - But the appellate court directed abatement because of non-substitution of the legal heirs of one of the respondents - Hence, the suit as well as the appeal abated H 732 PARAS NATH RAI v. STATE OF BIHAR 733 and resultantly the very commencement of the civil A proceeding came to a naught and, therefore, findings recorded in the said proceeding became extinct - High Court did not appreciate the /is in proper perspective and held that reliance on the findings recorded by the civil court by the revisional consolidation authority under the 1956 Act could 8 not be faulted - Said conclusion wholly erroneous - Matter remanded to High Court to decide the matter on merits on basis of the material brought before the Consolidation Authorities. Abatement - Conceptual difference between statutory C abatement and abatement under the CPC. Partition suit was filed_ by the father of the appellant No. 1 and others. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that it was defective for non-joinder of parties and o further that the stand of the appellants that 'U' was the daughter of 'A' did not appear to be correct. The appellants preferred title appeals. Meanwhile, the State Govgrnment meanwhile issued notification under Section 3 of Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of E Fragmentation Act, 1956 bringing the area under consolidation scheme. Before the lower appellate court, an application was filed under Section 4 (c) of the Act to the effect that the appeal and the suit had abated by statutory operation of law. The lower appellate court did not consider the application but held that the appeal could not be allowed to proceed as one of the respondents had died during the pendency of the appeal and the application for substitution of legal representative had been rejected. However, it allowed the appeal to be withdrawn. In revision, the single Judge of the High Court G returned a finding that the appellant had not made any prayer for withdrawal of the appeal and, therefore, the order passed by the lower appellate court was without jurisdiction and accordingly he remitted the matter to the H F 734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 10 S.C.R. A lower appellate court for disposal of the appeal afresh. Thereafter, Lower Appellate Court disposed of the appeal holding that appellants were not interested to contest appeal and that the title appeal stood abated. Meanwhile, in the consolidation proceedings, the 8 Director, Consolidation held that 'U' was the daughter of 'D' and not of 'A'. The said conclusion was arrived on the basis of the findings recorded by the civil court. The order was affirmed by the single Judge of High Court. In LPA, the Division Bench held that as the title appeal had abated C for non-prosecution by the appellants and a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.