IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.9452 OF 2003 1. RAM BABU SAH 2. MEHI LAL SAH 3. SHEO CHANDRA SAH ALL SONS OF LATE KHOBHARI SAH, RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE INDRAWARA (INWARA), POLICE STATION TEJPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR ………………………………………………PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE JOINT DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION, BIHAR AT MUZAFFARPUR 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, SAMASTIPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR 3. THE CONSOLIDATION OFFICER, TEJPUR, POLICE STATION TEJPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR 4. MANORMA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE TRILOKI MEHROTRA 5. BRIJ LAL MEHROTRA, SON OF LATE TRILOKI NATH MEHROTRA 6. DHARAM RAJ MEHROTRA @ KRISNA LAL MEHROTRA 7. KANHAIYA MEHROTRA 6 TO 7 BOTH MNOR SONS OF LATE TRILOKI NATH MEHROTRA UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR MOTHER MOSOMAT MANORAMA DEVI 4 TO 7 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE JANDAHA, POLICE STATION JANDAHA, DISTRICT VAISHALI ……………………………………………………………………RESPONDENTS ********* 11 14/07/2010 This application has been filed challenging the order dated 22.08.1998 (Annexure-1) passed by the Joint Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur in Revision Case No. 157 of 1995 under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. Notices were issued to respondents 4 to 7 to appear in this case. The petitioner came to this Court challenging the said order passed by the Joint Director in Case No. 157 of 1995 by filing CWJC No. 9532 of 1998. This Court 2 by order dated 15.02.2000 passed the order, which is as follows:- “The authorities under the Act are quasi judicial authorities and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply for disposal of the proceeding before the authorities and in that view of the matter, the petitioners may approach the authority concerned invoking its jurisdiction under order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. In case, such a prayer is made by the petitioners in terms of order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C., the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law.” The facts remains that this order was passed on the premises that an ex-parte order was passed by the Joint Director on 22.08.1998. The private respondents have not filed any counter affidavit controverting the fact that the order was not ex-parte and that the petitioners were given an opportunity to be heard in the revision application. This fact that the order was an ex-parte order has also not been controverted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. The petitioners after the order of the High Court passed in the year 2000 filed an application before the Joint Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur under order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C., which is still pending. This fact has 3 been stated in paragraph 21 and is not denied by respondent no. 1, the Joint Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur. Considering that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice and the petitioners have suffered immensely as his application under order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. has remained pending for nine years, this Court quashes the order contained in Annexure-1 on the ground that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The case is remitted back to the Joint Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur to hear it on its own merits after giving the opportunity to both parties. The Joint Director will dispose of the case within a period of six months on appearance of the parties or on valid service of notice to the parties. This application is allowed in the terms aforesaid. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )