IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16983 of 2007 RAM BILASH RAI, son of Late Deep Narayan Rai, Resident of Village Jhakhara, Seikh PO Karja District – Muzaffarpur ………… Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Joint Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur 3. Deputy Drector of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur 4.Consolidation Officer,Karja, PS Karja, Distt. Muzaffarpur 5. Harilal Rai son of Gyanchand Rai (decd.) 6. Rajdeo Rai 7. Ram Prasad Rai - Both sons of Late Bhoji Rai 8. Jai Mangal Rai 9. Raj Mangal Rai - Both sons of late Shiv Nandan Rai 10. Ramesh Rai 11. Dinesh Rai - Both sons of Late Shyam Bihari Rai 12. Brij Bihari Rai Son of Bhonu Rai @ Ram Bilash Rai decd. -Respondent nos. 5 to 12 all residents of Village Jhakhara Sheikh PO Karja, District Muzaffarpur… Respondents ----------- 02- 17.3.2009 Heard Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha III for the petitioner, and learned AC to Standing Counsel no.VI. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8.8.2007 (Annexure 4), passed by respondent no.2 in purported exercise of powers under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, whereby he has dismissed Revision Case No.25/1985, preferred by the present petitioner and others. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The revision application preferred by respondent no.5 was earlier rejected by the learned revisional authority by his order dated 30.10.87/10.11.87. Aggrieved by the order, respondent no.5 had preferred CWJC No. - 2 - 1346 of 1988 (Hari Lal Rai & Others v State of Bihar & Others), which was allowed by the judgment dated 13.11.88 (Annexure 3), the said order of the learned revisional authority was set aside, and the main matter was remitted back to dispose of the revision application afresh in accordance with the observations made therein. In compliance of the said direction, the learned revisional authority has passed the impugned order. It appears that the learned revisional authority decided the shares of the parties on the basis of the admitted genealogy. No ground for interference has been made out. The impugned order cannot be faulted. 4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) mrl