CIVIL REVIEW No.268 OF 1997 ---- 1. Manu Ram 2. Jogendra Ram 3. Budhan Ram All sons of Late Rameshwar Ram, residents of Chandpur Phatah, P.S. Patehpur, District Vaishali. -- Respondents- Petitioners. Versus 1. Amrendra Pd. Singh, S/o Late Raghunath Pd. Singh, resident of village Gopalpur Raja Ram, P.S. Sakra, District-Muzaffarpur. 2 (A). Sri Bhola Pd. Singh, 2(B). Surendra Pd. Singh, 2(C). Raj Kumar Pd Singh 2(D). Sri Ram Nath Pd. Singh 2(E). Raju Pd. Singh All sons of Late Maheshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of Village Gopalpur Raja Ram, P.S. Sakara, District-Muzaffarpur. 3(A) Smt. Shail Kumari D/o Late Raghubansh Pd. Singh Resident of Village & P.O. Bajitpur, P.S. Patepur, District Vaishali. 4(A). Smt. Raj Kumari Pd. Singh, W/O Late Baleshwar Pd. Singh. Resident of Village Gopalpur Raja Ram, P.S. Sakara, District-Muzaffarpur. Writ petitioners- Opposite Parties Ist Set. 5. The Joint Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna. 6. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Vaishali at Hazipur. 7. The Revenue Minister, Bihar Sarkar. Respondents-Opposite parties 2nd Set. ---- For the petitioners : Mr. Raghib Ahshan, Senior Advocate. M/s. Arvind Kumar & Prashant Pratap, Advocates. For the opposite parties : None. ---- P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN ---- S. N. Hussain, J. This case had been filed by the four review petitioners who were respondents no.3 to 6 in CWJC No.4856 of 1985, which was filed by the writ petitioners, who are opposite parties 1 to 4 in this review petition. 2. This case has been filed for review of order dated 05.12.1996 by which the aforesaid CWJC No.4856 of 1985 was allowed by a Bench of this court, setting aside the orders of the Deputy Director and Joint Director of Consolidation and remitting the matter to the Director of Consolidation/Joint Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur to treat the representation of the - 2 - contesting respondents as a petition under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) and thereafter if it is found proper to reopen the matter suo motu and decide the same after giving due notice to the writ petitioners. The said impugned order was passed by this court after hearing all the parties concerned, including the review petitioners, who were respondents in that case. 3. The claim of the writ petitioners was that the land in question was recorded in their names in the revisional survey and when the consolidation proceeding started, Notifications under Section 11 were issued showing petitioners as the owner of the said land. It is also claimed that respondents no.3 to 6 of the writ petition (review petitioners) subsequently filed a representation before the Revenue Minister claiming that the lands in question should have been recorded in their names relying upon cadestral survey entries, whereafter the Revenue Minister referred the matter to the Director of Consolidation, who in turn remitted the same to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, although there was no provision of law at all to adopt the said process. It was also pointed out by the writ petitioners that after notification under Section 10(1) of the Act, no objection was filed by the respondents of the writ case (review petitioners), nor did they file any appeal against the orders of the Consolidation Officer and only after publication under Section 11 of the Act, the said representation was filed before the Hon’ble Revenue Minister. It is also stated that although there was no such procedure in law, but the Deputy Director entertained the said representation and allowed it by his order dated 26.06.1984 and that even if the said petition was under the provision of Section 35 of the Act, it could not have been decided by the appellate court, namely, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Vaishali. It was further stated that these facts were not taken into account by the revisional authority and without discussing the aforesaid matter relating to jurisdiction, the Joint Director - 3 - affirmed the order of the Deputy Director and rejected the revision petition filed on behalf of the writ petitioners. Hence, against the aforesaid orders of the appellate as well as the revisional authority, the writ petitioners filed the aforesaid writ case and accepting their plea detailed above a Bench of this court vide the impugned order dated 05.12.1996 set aside the aforesaid orders of the Deputy Director and the Joint Director and remitted the matter to the revisional authority. 4. From the averments as well as from the materials on record, including the Annexures of the writ petition etc. it is quite apparent that it is not in dispute that on 04.04.1973, respondents no.3 to 6 of the writ petition, who are petitioners in this review case approached the Revenue Minister, but there is no material at all on record to show that the Revenue Minister passed any order on the said petition or even referred the matter to the consolidation authorities. A bald statement in that regard has been made by the writ petitioners which was clearly unambiguously denied by the respondents of the writ petition. In the said circumstances, there was no occasion for this court to assume that the Revenue Minister had referred the matter to the revisional authority, who in turn referred it to the appellate authority. 5. However, from the materials on record as well as the pleadings of the parties, it is quite apparent that the review petitioners had filed their objection to the consolidation entries before the consolidation officers which was not entertained and the names of the writ petitioners were recorded. It is also apparent that the review petitioners filed objection under Section 12 of the Act which was similarly not entertained. It is further apparent from the record of the case, especially Annexure-4 of this petition, that the review petitioners had filed an independent petition before the Director of Consolidation under Section 35 of the Act which was numbered as Case No.156 of 1982 and was admitted on 15.02.1982 restraining the opposite parties from disturbing the possession of the petitioners and also prohibiting the Consolidation Officer, Patepur from giving - 4 - permission for sale or transfer of the suit land. From the said petition and order, it is quite apparent that the said case was an independent case initiated on a separate petition of the petitioners under Section 35 of the Act and had no connection with the Revenue Minister. Furthermore the Director of Consolidation had full authority to decide such petitions even if the revisioner had not filed any objection or appeal before the authorities concerned. 6. It is further apparent from Annexure-4/A that the Director of Consolidation passed an ex parte order dated 27.12.1982 as in spite of service of notice, the opposite parties, who were the writ petitioners, did not appear before the revisional court. However, after considering the entire facts and circumstances, the learned Director of Consolidation set aside the impugned orders of the authorities concerned and referred the matter to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Vaishali for making a detailed inquiry in the matter, after hearing the petitioners and the opposite parties and after getting on spot verification done by a government officer and to pass an appropriate order in that regard. In the said circumstances, when the matter came before the Deputy Director of Consolidation it complied the aforesaid order of the Director of Consolidation and after a detailed inquiry and after hearing the matter allowed the claim of the review petitioners vide his order dated 26.06.1984 (Annexure-3/A). It may be noted that the only mistake committed by the Deputy Director was that he retained the number of the case which was filed by the petitioners before the Director of Consolidation, namely Revision Case No.158 of 1982. It is quite apparent that this was a case of simple clerical oversight with respect to the case number and had nothing to do with the merit of the case and the respective claims of the parties and hence it had no bearing on the said order at all, except the nomenclature given at the top of the order. 7. It transpires that against the aforesaid order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 26.06.1984, the opposite parties (writ petitioners) filed - 5 - Revision Case No.2751 of 1984 before the Director of Consolidation and the said case was heard by the Joint Director of Consolidation who considered the matter in detail and came to the same conclusion as mentioned above on the basis of materials on record and on those materials and grounds affirmed the order of the Deputy Director and dismissed Revision Case No.2751 of 1984 by his order dated 27.07.1985 (Annexure-3). From perusal of the aforesaid orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation as well as the Joint Director of Consolidation, it transpires that they were based on specific materials on record and their findings were not falsified by the writ petitioners by any valid or reliable evidence. 8. Against the said orders of the consolidation authorities, the opposite parties filed CWJC No.4856 of 1985 and a Bench of this Court vide its order dated 05.12.1996 (Annexure-1) allowed the said writ petition on the ground that the Revenue Minister had no authority to get a proceeding initiated or to remand any matter to the consolidation authorities giving any direction in that regard and that the Deputy Director of Consolidation being an appellate authority had no jurisdiction to pass an order in a revision case under Section 35 of the Act. 9. Against the aforesaid order passed in the writ case, the review petitioners (respondents in the writ case) filed L.P.A.No.197 of 1997 and a Division Bench of this court disposed it of by order dated 30.09.1997 (Annexure- 2) with an observation that the petitioners, if so advised, may move before the appropriate forum for review of the order of the learned Single Judge as according to the petitioners it was erroneously held that the petitioners had filed an appeal. In view of the aforesaid observation, this case has been filed by the petitioners for review of the said order dated 05.12.1996 passed in CWJC No.4856 of 1985. 10. So far first question is concerned, this court finds from the materials on record of this review case as well as records of the writ case that there was nothing to show that the Revenue Minister had passed any order or had ever referred the matter to any of the consolidation authorities, nor there is - 6 - anything to show that the orders of the authorities were on the basis of any direction from the Revenue Minister and the said allegation raised by the writ petitioners (opposite parties no.1 to 4) is absolutely baseless and frivolous and there was no occasion to pass any order relying upon such statements. 11. So far the second question is concerned, it is quite apparent from the respective claims of the parties that no appeal was ever filed by the petitioners before the appellate authority, nor the appellate authority had ever decided any revision under Section 35 of the Act. It is also apparent from the record that the petitioners had only filed a revision bearing Case No.156 of 1982 and that too directly before the Director of Consolidation under Section 35 of the Act and the said Director of Consolidation by its order dated 27.12.1982 had remanded the matter to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for making a detailed inquiry and for hearing the parties and passing an appropriate order. It is quite apparent that the Deputy Director of Consolidation complied the said order of the Director of Consolidation to the hilt and after making due inquiry and after hearing the parties passed its order dated 26.06.1984 allowing the claim of the petitioners. It is thus quite apparent that the said order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be legally held to be a revisional order as it was passed by an appellate authority after remand from the revisional authority. 12. However, the only mistake was that the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not take any care for changing the nomenclature of the case and continued with the same number which was the number of the revision case. This appears to be a minor clerical mistake not at all affecting the merit of the case or the jurisdiction of the appellate authority and merely on that basis it cannot be held that the Deputy Director of Consolidation assumed the authority of the revisional court. The writ petitioners were also quite aware of the said situation and hence against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, they filed a revision case bearing Revision Case No.2751 of 1984 before the Director of - 7 - Consolidation under Section 35 of the Act. Hence, they had also treated the order of the Deputy Director as an appellate order and not as a revisional order because had they assumed that the order of the Deputy Director was a revisional order, the writ petitioners would have filed a writ petition in this court as any order passed under Section 35 of the Act is a final order in accordance with the provision of the Act and no revision was maintainable against that order. In the said circumstances, the claim of the writ petitioners in the writ petition was quite contrary to the steps taken by them in that regard. Thus, on that score also there was no occasion for allowing the writ petition. 13. Apart from the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation as well as of the Joint Director of Consolidation are concluded by findings of facts based upon the materials on record, the claims of the respective parties and the inquiry held in that matter and hence there was no defect at all in the findings of the said orders on merits. It may be noted in this regard that the powers of the Director of Consolidation which included Joint Director of Consolidation under the provision of Section 35 of the Act are quite wide and it can be utilized at any stage before the Notification under Section 26A of the Act which admittedly has not yet been published. Furthermore, the review petitioners having shown special circumstances and reasons due to which they were unable to approach the consolidation officer earlier, the revisional authority had full authority in law to entertain such case under Section 35 of the Act and hence after considering the matter on merit and after verifying the pleadings and materials it rightly came to the conclusion that the claim of the revisional petitioners were legal and justified and allowed the same. In the said circumstances, no defect can be legally found in the said orders of the authorities concerned, but this aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by the impugned order under review. - 8 - 14. Considering the facts and circumstances in its entirety , including the claims and materials produced in the writ petition, and also considering the claims and materials produced in the review petition and after perusing the impugned order of this court as well as the orders of the revisional and appellate authorities, it is quite apparent that a Bench of this Court while passing the impugned order has committed an error apparent on the face of the record and had set aside the orders of the consolidation authorities merely on the assumptions that on the directions of the Revenue Minister, the consolidation case had started and that the appellate authority had decided a revision case under Section 35 of the Act. These findings are clearly against the materials on record and are not sustainable in law. 15. Accordingly, this review petition is allowed, order dated 05.12.1996 passed in CWJC No.4856 of 1985 is reviewed and recalled and the aforesaid writ petition is dismissed affirming the orders of the Joint Director of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27.07.1985 and 26.06.1984. (S. N. Hussain, J.) Patna High Court Dated, the 24th July, 2009. N.A.F.R. Sunil.