IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.234 of 2008 ***** 1. Sonamati Devi wife of late Girdhari Ray (daughter-in-law of Ram Prasad Ray. 2. Rahul Ray 3. Raushan Ray 4. Vikas Ray 2 to 4, Minor sons of late Girdhari Ray through their mother and natural guardian Sonamati Devi 5. Mosomat Durgawati Devi, wife of late Keshaw Ray 6. Muna Ray 7. Ajay Ray alias Ladu Ray Both sons of late Keshaw Ray 8. Antim Ray, minor son of late Keshaw Ray through his mother and natural guardian most. Durgawati Devi 9. Thakur Ray son of late Ram Prit Ray …. …. (Respondents) Appellants 10. Shanti Devi widow of late Mangaru Ray. 11. Ramashish Singh 12. Umashankar Singh 13. Manoj Singh 14. Muna Singh 11 to 14 sons of late Mangaru Ray. All residents of village, post office and police station Dhansoi, District Buxar. …. …. Appellants Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Joint Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bhojpur. 4. The Consolidation Officer, Rajpur, District-Buxar. …. …. (Respondent 1st Set)-Respondent 1st Set. 5. Rohit Rai son of late Feku Rai. 6. Abhimanu Rai son of late Feku Rai residents of village Dhansoi, post office Dhansoi police station Dhansoi (Rajpur) District Buxar. …. …. (Petitioners) Respondent 2nd Set. ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. K.N.Choubey, Senior Advocate Mrs. M. Chatterjee, Advocate For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: Mr. M.K.Singh, Government Pleader- XII For the Respondents : Mr. Ras Bihari Thakur, Advocate Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate ----------- - 2 - P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 2nd December, 2008. We heard the senior counsel for the appellants and the counsel for respondent nos. 5 and 6. 2. The thrust of the contention of the senior counsel for the appellants is that Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (for short, „Act, 1956‟) is not in pari materia with the revisional power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Single Judge was not justified in applying the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sher Singh vs. Joint Director, Consolidation, (1978) 3 SCC 172 which related to a case under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, where Section 48 of that Act is materially different from Section 35 of the Act, 1956. The senior counsel would also submit that in any case the matter ought to have been remanded by the Single Judge to the revisional authority. 3. Section 35 of the Act, 1956 reads thus: - “35. Revision and reference. – The Director of Consolidation may of his own motion or on the application of any party or on reference being made by any subordinate authority, call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by such authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceeding; or as to the - 3 - correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, and may after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit.” 4. Even if, we assume that revisional power given to the Director of Consolidation under Section 35 of the Act, 1956 is wide and not in pari materia to the revisional power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, yet it was not open to the revisional authority to upset concurrent findings recorded by the two authorities in a slip shod manner. We perused the order of the revisional authority and we find ourselves in agreement with view of the Single Judge that concurrent findings recorded by the two authorities have been upset by the revisional authority by passing a cryptic order. The Single Judge recorded the findings thus: - “… … … The mention in the revisional order that no document is produced to show the right of the petitioner is, also, totally misconceived in the light of the order of the Consolidation Officer (respondent no.4) in which all details are elaborately highlighted and enumerated. The number of documents relied on by the petitioner and relied on by the Consolidation Officers are also mentioned which came to be affirmed in appeal. Unfortunately, the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two revenue courts came to be reversed by virtue of the order recorded in revision by respondent no.2 without any justification. … … …” 5. The consideration of the matter by the Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity justifying - 4 - interference by us. 6. Letters Patent Appeal does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-