IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6566 of 2001 1. YADUPAL KALWAR @ YADUPAT KALWAR SON OF LATE RADHA KISHNA KALWAR 2. SARJU KALWAR 3. DEOMUNI KALWAR 4. JAMUNA KALWAR ALL SONS OF LATE GANPAT KALWAR 5. MAHENDRA KALWAR 6. SURENDRA KALWAR BOTH SONS OF SRIRAM KALWAR ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PARASIAN, P.S.- RAJAPUR, DISTRUCT- BUXAR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, BIHAR, PATNA 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, BUXAR, DISTRICT- BUXAR 4. ASSISTANT CONSOLIDATION OFFICER, RAJAPUR, P.S. RAJAPUR, DISTRICT- BUXAR 5. KEDAR NATH CHOUBEY SON OF LATE BUTAI CHOUBEY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PARASIAN, P.S. RAJAPUR, DISTRICT- BUXAR. ----- FOR THE PETITIONERS : MR. VINDHY KESHRI KUMAR, SR. ADVOCATE MR. SANJAY KUMAR MANU, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.5 : MR. NARESH CHANDRA VERMA, ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE : MR. G.P. VII 10 12.02.2009 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners, respondents as also the State. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent no.2 after passing of the order dated 12.05.1999 in Revision Case No. 286 of 1997, as contained in Annexure-2, whereby he dismissed the revision application holding that he did not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the Court below, however subsequently again on a petition filed under section 33A of the Bihar Consolidation of Holding & Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, passed the impugned order dated 23.06.1999 (Annexure-1) in the same very revision application whereby he reversed the 2 order since by order dated 12.05.1999 the revision application was dismissed, however by order dated 23.06.1999 the revision application was allowed with observation that on account of clerical error in the said order the revision application was written as dismissed and that too without hearing the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that he had filed the aforesaid revision application against the order dated 21.12.1976 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in Case No. 63 of 1974-75 whereby it was alleged that the petitioners herein fraudulently got the order passed in their favour with respect to 35 decimals of land in revisional survey no.826 instead of 20 decimals of land. After hearing the submissions of the parties and their respective pleadings, it does not appear that as to what order has been passed on the order assailed in the aforesaid revision application which was against the order dated 21.12.1976 in Case No. 63 of 1974-75 as would appear from paragraph 6 of the memo of revision case no. 286 of 1997, as contained in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. At this stage, learned counsels appearing for the parties are in agreement that the orders contained in Annexures- 1 & 2 may be quashed and the matter be 3 remitted back to the respondent no.2, the Director Consolidation, Bihar Patna for passing a fresh order on the revision application Case No. 286 of 1997 with respect to the order under revision. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances, as noticed above, the order dated 12.05.1999 (Annexure-2) as well as the order dated 23.06.1999 (Annexure-1) both passed in Revision Case No. 286 of 1997 is, hereby, quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2 for passing a fresh order in accordance with law considering the materials on record and after hearing both the party. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with the above observations/directions. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)