IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4940 of 2001 RAM RAJ SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 05/ 09.9.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the private Respondent no.5 as also the State, although this case was adjourned on 5.9.2008 and 8.9.2008 to secure their attendance. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.5.1998, passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation (Headquarter) in Revision Case No. 210 of 1994, which Revision application was disposed of exactly in the same terms, which is contained in order dated 27.5.1998, passed in Revision Case No. 209 of 1`994. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that perusal of the order dated 27.5.1998, passed in Revision Case No. 209 of 1994 would indicate that thereunder Revision Case No. 209 of 1994 was dismissed on the ground of limitation by the Deputy Director, Consolidation (Headquarter), Bihar, Patna, who has no authority to pass orders in terms of Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 4. The Deputy Director, Consolidation (Headquarter), Bihar, Patna is not vested with the powers under Section 35 of the Act. In the circumstances, order dated 2 27.5.1998, passed in Revision Case No. 210 of 1994 is without jurisdiction, which is, accordingly, set aside and the Revision Case No. 210 of 1994 is remitted back to the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna to hear the matter once again and if the petitioner is able to satisfy that he has good grounds for condonation of delay of 17 years in filing the revision case then the Director, Consolidation shall be obliged to condone the delay in filing the said revision application. 5. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)