M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. In this writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing of the order dated 31.12.1983 passed in Revision Case No. 477 of 1980 by the Joint Director of Consolidation, Bihar (Respondent No. 4) contained in Annexure 3, whereby he has affirmed the order dated 7.3.1980 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Purnia (Respondent No. 3) in Misc, Petition No. 3 of 1979-80 contained in Annexure 2. By the said order dated 7.3.1980, respondent No. 3 has set aside the order dated 26.12.1978 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Purnia, purported to have been passed under Section 10(2) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').
2. The facts of this case is in a very narrow compass.
3. The petitioner is alleged to have acquired 19.31 acres of raiyati holding pertaining to C.S. Khesra Nos. 172, 173, 176 and 177 of C.S. Khata No. 9 of Mauza Pariharpur within the Baisi Police Station in the district of Purnia by virtue of a registered sale-dead as also by auction purchase. Although the details of the persons from whom these plots were purchases have not been mentioned in the writ application, in paragraph 39 whereof it is stated that the land were purchased through different sale deeds in between 1943 and 1955. It was also alleged that the raiyati interest in Khata No. 4 of plot No. 202/230 having an area of 0.411/2 acre was acquired through auction sale.
4. The petitioner further alleged that, after said acquisition, he came in possession of the said lands on payment of rent to the ex-landlord and then to the State. According to the petitioner, that river Praman used to flow contiguous south of plot Nos. 172, 173, 175, 176 and 187. Subsequently, the river changed its course in such a manner that all the plots aforementioned were intersected by the river leaving portions of the intersected plots at both banks of the river clearly identifiable and submerging the middle portion.
5. It is admitted in paragraph 10 of the writ application that the revisional survey map would show that the submerged middle portion of the said whole plots were identified during the course of revisional survey and were recorded in the name of the State of Bihar.
6. It is also alleged that, after the revisional survey, which was finalised in 1958, the aforesaid submerged middle portions of the said plots re-appeared as the river changed its course again and become one with the intersected portions being their middle portion. The petitioner, thereafter, resumed cultivation and continuously he paid rent to the State of Bihar. According to him, as the middle submerged portions had re-appeared after the revisional survey and, in 1972 when the consolidation proceedings were undertaken in the area, the petitioner filed a petition before the Consolidation Officer to record his name in the Register. The Consolidation Officer visited the plot and he, on being satisfied that the portions, which were submerged during the revisional survey, had re-appeared and were being cultivated by the petitioner, passed an order on 21.8/976 in Case No. 17 of 1976 for recording the lands in the name of the petitioner. The said order is Annexure-1 to the writ application.
7. The petitioner further tried to make out a case that the order of the Consolidation Officer aforementioned had been rightly passed as the petitioner had become entitled to take possession and hold the lands as owner in accordance with the Bangal Alluvion and Diluvium Regulation, 1825. It is said that when the draft chak scheme was prepared, the aforesaid plots in question were merged into two chaks which were allotted in the name of the petitioner bearing chak No. 90, having an area of 1.33 acres and chak No. 98, having an area of 0.52 acre.
8. It is further alleged by the petitioner that, when the Khatian was distributed to the raiyat only then become to know that the plots in dispute did not (in mention in any of the Chaks allotted to him on enquiry, the petitioner learnt that the Deputy Director (Respondent No. 3) at a belated stage of confirmation scheme of the village had passed an order suo motu on 26, 12.1978 at the foot of the order of the Consolidation Officer to the effect that, as the petitioner had not perfected his right over the lands recorded in the name of the State of Bihar by remaining in continuous possession of 30 years, the name of the petitioner could not be recorded in respect of the aforesaid plots of lands. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, filed a miscellaneous case before the Consolidation Officer who rejected the same on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Director (Respondent No. 3). Thereafter, the petitioner moved the Deputy Director by filing a miscellaneous petition being Misc. Petition No. 3 of 1979-80 who, by an order dated 7.3.1980, rejected the prayer of the petitioner holding that the petitioner should file a revision against the order dated 26.12.1978. The petitioner, accordingly, filed a revision being consolidation Revision No. 477 of 1980 which was also rejected by the Joint Director of Consolidation (Respondent No. 4) by his order dated 31.12.1983 (Annexure-3).
9. Mr. Keshav Srivastav learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, assaulted the order of the Joint Director setting aside the order of the Consolidation Officer on the ground, inter alia that the Joint Director, Consolidation, had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Consolidation Officer.
10. Mr. Srivastav submitted that the order of the Joint Director of consolidation upholding the illegal order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation without examining the regularity of such proceeding cannot be sustained in law. He further submitted that the authorities, who had passed the order against the petitioner had completely overlooked the provision of Section 52 A (2) of the Bihar Tenancy Act which provides that the right, title and interest of the raiyat shall subsist in the lands lost by diluvium of portion during the period of loss and the raiyat shall have the right to take immediate possession on the reformation of such land or portions on its old site. During the course of argument, on the query made by this Court, the learned Counsel fairly accepted that, in both the Cadestral and the Revisional Survey records of right the lands in question were recorded as Gairmajrua belonging to the State of Bihar. The Cadestral Survey, which took place some time in 1907.08, the lands were recorded as Gairmajura. No evidence were brought on record to show that the petitioner or his predecessor-in-interest had acquired the status of a raiyat or the lands were settled by the State in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner or even in favour of the petitioner. When in between 1943 and 1955, the lands were purchased by the petitioner by through different sale-deeds, there is no evidence as to how the petitioner became the owner and or raiyat of the Gairmajura land belonging to the State. The term 'Raiyat' has been defined in Section 2(14) of the said Act which runs thus:-
'Raiyat' means primarily a person who has acquired a right to hold land for the purpose of cultivating it by himself, or by member of his family or by hired servants or with the aid of partners and includes, also the successdrs-in-interest of persons who have acquired such a right and includes-
(i) in the district of the Santhal Pargans a village headman in respect of his private holdings, if any and
(ii) in the areas to which the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (Ben. Act VI of 1908). applies, a mundari Khuntkattidar and Bhuindhar.
11. From the definition itself, it is clear that for acquiring the status of a raiyat it must be established by the petitioner that he has acquired a right to hold the land for the purpose of cultivation or his predecessors-in-interest have acquired such right. As stated above, merely because the petitioner has claimed to be in possession of the lands at one point of time does not confer right to hold the land as raiyat particularly when the land in question has been shown as River (Gairmajrua land) in the Cadestral and the Revisional Survey records of right. It is well settled that an entry in survey records of right carries all presumptive value and, therefore, if the party claiming a piece of land has to succeed, it is obligatory for him before his case. From the order dated 21.8.1976 passed by the Consolidation Officer, it would appear that the Consolidation Officer was influenced by the fact that the petitioner was found in possession and his possession was recorded in the Khation for the last two years. The said order of the Consolidation Officer was not accepted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation who cancelled the same on the ground that, when the land was admittedly recorded as Gairmajrua, the Record cannot and shall not be prepared in the name of the petitioner who had never claimed to have been in adverse possession against the state for more than 30 years. When the matter ultimately came up before the revisional authority, i.e. , the Joint Director, Consolidation , he, before passing the final order, called for a report with regard to the nature and status of the disputed land. If was reported that the disputed land was Gairmajura and was recorded as such in the name of the State of Bihar in the Revisional Survey records of right. The Joint Director, after perusal of the records, came to a finding that the land belonged to the State of Bihar and the petitioner failed to establish that he had acquired a valid title over the land inquestion. Accordingly, the order of the Consolidation Officer was set aside. There is no reason to disagrees with the order of the revisional authority. Then the petitioner failed to establish that he had acquired the right to hold the land as a raiyat or his predecessor-in-interest were holding the land as raiyats, the Consolidation Officer was not justified in passing the order in favour of the petitioner for recording his name in the Register. Learned Counsel has challenged the order of the Joint Director being without jurisdiction. There is no substance in the submission of the learned Counsel in as much as Section 35 of the said Act empowers the revisional authority to call for and examine either of his own motion or on the application of any party or on reference being made by any subordinate authority the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by such authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity for the proceeding, or as to the correctness, legality, or propriety of any other passed by such authority in the case or proceedings.
12. In the result, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. I will make no order as to costs, .