IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7004 of 2008 1. RAM CHANDRA SINGH 2. Ram Raj Singh, Both Sons of Late Mahipat Singh 3. Binod Kumar Singh, Son of Late Kamala Singh and Grand Son of late Mahipat Singh 4. Jag Narayan Singh 5. Ujagir Singh 6. Satya Narayan Singh All sons of late Rama Nand Singh. 7. Nathuni Singh Son of Late Ramjee Singh, All residents of Village- Pakari, P. O.- Rajpur, District- Rohtas 8. Matura Devi Wife of Keshar Singh, Resident of Village Gendua, P.O.- Gorari, District- Rohtas -----------------------Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Joint Director of Consolidation, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Assistant Director of Consolidation, Rohtas at Sasaram 4. The Deputy Director (Head Quarter) Consolidation, Government of Bihar, Patna 5. The Consolidation Officer, Nasariganj, District- Rohtas at Sasaram 6. Gupteshwar Singh Son of Late Mukhi Singh 7. Sri Bhagwan Singh Son of Late Gupteshwar Singh 8. Laxman Singh Son of Bhuneshwar Singh All residents of Village- Pakari, P.O- Rajpur, P.S. Nasariganj, District- Rohtas ------------------Respondents. ----------- 2. 20.4.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 7.2.2008 passed in Revision Case No. 1637 of 1986 by the Joint Director Consolidation, Government of Bihar, Patna as well as the order dated 6.5.1986 passed in Appeal No. 173 of 1982 by the Assistant Director Consolidation, Rohtas at Sasaram. Impugned orders have been challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the revisional jurisdiction under the Act is provided to the Director of Consolidation only and the Joint Director of Consolidation has - 2 - not been vested with the power to exercise revisional jurisdiction. Secondly, it has been stated that the appellate order is also without jurisdiction as the Assistant Director Consolidation is not authorized to hear and decide appeals. It has also been stated that the appellate authority has entertained a time barred appeal without condoning the delay. The word “Director of Consolidation” has been defined under Section 2 Sub Section (4) of the Act. “The Director of Consolidation” is an officer appointed by the State Government to exercise the powers and perform the duties of Director of Consolidation under the Act or the rules made thereunder and shall include an Additional Director of Consolidation and a Joint Director of Consolidation. Similarly, the appellate power can be exercised by the Assistant Director of Consolidation under the Act as provided under Section 10(6) of the Act which provides that any person aggrieved by an order of the Assistant Director of Consolidation or Consolidation Officer under Sub Sections (3), (4) and (5) may within 30 days of such order, file an appeal before the Assistant Director of Consolidation, whose decision, except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, shall be final. Two grounds taken by petitioners for assailing impugned order are not sustainable. So far the delay part is concerned, on perusal of orders i.e., revisional and appellate order, it is evident that suit filed by the petitioners under Section 106 B of the B.T. Act, abated under the provisions of Section 4(c) of the Consolidation Act. The petitioners thereafter moved before the Consolidation Officer, Nasariganj by filing an application under Section 10 B of the Consolidation Act. In this case the respondents were not heard and - 3 - an ex parte order was passed. The respondent when came to know about this, they filed a review application which was not entertained for the reason that the Consolidation Officer is not vested with the power of review under the statute. The Consolidation Officer directed the review petitioners to file an appeal and thereafter appeal was filed for challenging the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in the year 1981. The appellate order is a detailed order where documents filed by both the parties and submissions made by them was duly considered and reasoned order was passed. The appeal was decided in favour of the respondents against which revision was preferred by the petitioners. Revision Application was heard and decided by the Assistant Director of Consolidation and order passed by the Appellate Court was set aside. That order was challenged by respondents by filing C.W. J.C. No. 4369 of 1987. The reivisonal order passed by the Assistant Director was quashed and the matter was remitted back to the competent authority for redeciding the revision. The revisional order now has been passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation, the revisional order is also a detailed and reasoned order. I do not find any reason to interefere and quash the impugned appellate as well as revisional order. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. The petitioner may approach the alternative forum that is the competent Civil Court. P. Kumar (Mridula Mishra, J.)