Letters Patent Appeal No.628 OF 1995 Against the judgment and order dated 3.4.1995 passed by a Singh Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 5791/1984. KHAIRAT AHMAD------------------------------------------Appellant Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS-----------------------------------Respondents For the appellant : Mr.Farooque Moazaam, Adv. For the respondents : Mr.Rajeev Kumar, J.C. to S.C.16. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MRS. REKHA KUMARI S.K.Singh & Rekha Kumari,J.J. Heard the parties. 2. By the order under appeal the Hon’ble Single Judge has allowed the writ petition preferred by the private respondents in this appeal only in part and in stead of giving his own findings on the issues involved, his Lordships remitted the matter back to the Director of Consolidation to decide the dispute afresh in accordance with law after taking evidence including the statement of witnesses on the issue of validity of oral gift as claimed by the appellant. 3. On going through the orders of the consolidation authorities including the order of the Director as well as the order of the Writ Court we find that the Hon’ble Singh Judge was right in noticing that the validity of oral gift claimed by the appellant was accepted by the revisional court overlooking the fact that no evidence has been led in support of his claim. We find no good reason to take a contrary view in the matter. The Writ Court appears to be quite justified in remitting the matter back to the Director of Consolidation for a fresh decision in accordance with law and the observations made in the order under appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised another issue of law that from the facts discussed in the order of Director, Consolidation, it prima facie appears that the objections filed by 2 the respondents before the Consolidation Officer were beyond the period permissible under section 10 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act,1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). According to the learned counsel for the appellant, on account of delay the objections should have been rejected as barred by section 10A of the Act. It is, therefore, contended before us that the Hon’ble Singh Judge should not have remanded the matter to the Director, Consolidation, and considering the bar under section 10A of the Act the writ petition should have been dismissed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, has submitted that the order of the original court and the appellate court under the Act would show that no such objection was taken by the appellant before the Consolidation Officer or the Assistant Director of Consolidation who decided the appeal. He further submitted that such objection on the ground of section 10A of the Act has correctly been dealt by the Director, Consolidation, who overruled such objection after noticing the relationship between the parties and the fact that the objections had been filed on behalf of the lady members of the family who are married and reside in different villages. He relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Sheo Kumar Thakur vs. State of Bihar, 1985 PLJR 986, to submit that the provisions of section 35 of the Act override those of section 10A and the Director of Consolidation, in the interest of justice, can examine the regularity or otherwise of any consolidation proceeding and propriety of any order apart from its correctness and legality. 6. On considering the rival submissions on the issue of applicability of bar under section 10A, in the facts of the case, we find that the Director, Consolidation, was not bound by bar created under section 10A of the Act and he gave reasons for ignoring that bar while exercising his revisional jurisdiction. In the facts of 3 the case, since the matter has been remitted back to the Director, Consolidation, we are of the view that the bar under section 10A of the Act would not be applicable in this case and therefore, the order of remand passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge requires no interference. 7. We find no merit in this appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) ( Rekha Kumari,J.) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated, 18th April,2008 Surendra/ NAFR.