IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10608 of 2003 1. CHETAN ROY. 2. RAMJI ROY. 3. SITAB ROY. ALL S/O LATE SARYUG ROY. 4. TILAKDHARI RAI. 5. AMOD KUMAR. S/O LATE PRAMOD RAI. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAYAGAON, THANA NO.531, P.S. + ANCHAL DESHRI, DISTRICT-VAISHALI (HAJIPUR). ………………………………………………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION (HQRS), PATNA. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION, HAJIPUR. 4. BALESHWAR ROY, S/O LATE BIPAT ROY, VILLAGE NAYAGAON ,P.S. + ANCHAL-DESARI, DISTRICT VAISHALI (HAZIPUR). ………………………………………………………..RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3. 28.8.2009. Heard Mr. Girijanand Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioners. The State is represented by Mr. Binod Kumar, AC to SC- V. None appears on behalf of Respondent No.4 despite service of notice. This case is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself with the consent of the appearing parties. The petitioners seek quashing of order dated 30.11.1999 as contained in Annexure-2, passed by the Respondent no.2 in purported exercise of his revisional powers under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act,1956 ( hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”) Learned counsel for the petitioners confines his submission to a short question of law at the time of hearing of this application. It - 2 - is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the Deputy Director, Consolidation (Hqrs), Patna was not competent to hear and decide Revision No.137/1999 which was filed challenging the order dated 4.3.1998 passed in Misc. Case No.33/97-98 by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Vaishali. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed Misc. Case No.33/97-98 before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Vaishali at Hajipur for correction of record of rights which was allowed vide Anneuxre-„1‟. The Respondent No.4 preferred Revision Case No.137 of 1999 before the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna, which was heard and allowed of by the Deputy Director, Consolidation(Hqrs.), Bihar, Patna, by the impugned order dated 30.11.1999. It had been stated in the said order that even after the issuance of notice upon the opposite parties they did not appear, thus, the matter was heard and disposed of in their absence. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the order first as contained in Annexure-„1‟ and the next order in Revision have been passed by the Officer of the rank of Deputy Director of Consolidation which is patently illegal. The learned counsel for the State fairly admitted that this issue had been decided earlier by this Court holding that the Deputy Director, Consolidation cannot decide the revision in purported exercise of power under Section 35 of the Act. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the Director of Consolidation stands defined in - 3 - Section 2(4) of the Act which is quoted as under: “2(4): Director of Consolidation means the officer appointed as such by the State Government to exercise the powers and perform the duties of Director of Consolidation under this Act or the rules made thereunder and shall include an Additional Director of Consolidation and a Joint Director of Consolidation.” It is apparent therefrom that Director of Consolidation includes Additional Director of Consolidation and Joint Director of Consolidation. Section 35 of the Act clearly stipulates that the Director of Consolidation is empowered to call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by the authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance upon a decision of this Court rendered in Jhuri Bind and others Vs. The State of Bihar and others {2007(4) BBCJ 563} wherein the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision against an order passed by another Deputy Director of Consolidation had been declared to be without jurisdiction. From conjoint reading of Section 2(4) as well as 35 of the Act it would be manifest that the revisional power could be exercised by the Director of Consolidation or Additional Director of Consolidation or Joint Director of Consolidation and none else. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, thus, in my opinion, is not competent to hear a revision against an order which has been passed under the Act by another Deputy Director of Consolidation. That apart, for the reason that the Deputy Director ( Hqrs) - 4 - being a concurrent authority to the Deputy Director, Vaishali, was not competent to entertain and decide revision against his order . The entire scheme of justice delivery system revolves around the fundamental principle of fair play. The fundamental principle of such fair play or rule of law is that the concurrent authority cannot decide the matter in appeal or revision. Thus, it is held that the revisional order dated 30.11.1999 as contained in Annexure-2 is without jurisdiction as the Respondent no.2 was a forum non competens to decide such issue . In view of the above, this writ application is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.11.1999 is quashed. Since the matter pertains to right of immovable property, the same is remitted back to the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna, to hear and decide the revision afresh by him in accordance with law after hearing the parties. However, there shall be no order as to costs. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)