IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16413 of 2009 RAM SWARATH SINGH, son of Late Murat Singh, resident of Village- Kaser, P.O.- Kaser, Anchal + P.S.- Bhagwanpur, District- Kaimur :--- Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Director, Consolidation, Rohtas (Sasaram). 4. The Circle Officer-cum-Consolidation Officer, Bhagwanpur, District- Kaimur :-- Respondents. ----------- 2. 27.11.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner claims himself to be the descendant of Nanku Singh who died issueless and the petitioner being the son of Murat Singh, who was the full brother of Nanku Singh, claimed interest in the properties of Nanku Singh. The lands in-question was settled by the ex landlord in favour of Nanku Singh before the vesting of the intermediary interest and after vesting the landlord submitted return in respect of the lands in-question indicating that Nanku Singh is the tenant of the Khata along with others, as is evident from Annexure-1. Later, the name of Nanku Singh was also entered in Register-II-Tenant’s Ledger as regards the lands in-question. Extract from the Register-II-Tenant’s Register is annexed as Annexure-2 to this application. During revisional survey proceedings, however, the lands could not be recorded in the name of Nanku Singh or his heirs, namely, the petitioner. When the petitioner learnt that the lands in-question has not been recorded in the name of Nanku Singh or his heirs and the time to file objection has already expired then petitioner filed present consolidation revision case before the Director Consolidation praying inter alia to exercise suo motu power and remit back the matter to the Consolidation Officer in terms of Sub-Section (7) of Section 10 of the Consolidation Act for enquiry as to whether the lands-in-question was ever settled with Nanku Singh and he was recorded in the Tenant’s Ledger and by virtue of such settlement his heirs are in possession of the lands in-question. The Director, Consolidation it appears, has refused to exercise his jurisdiction under orders dated 25.5.2009, Annexure-3 on the ground that the genealogical table furnished by the petitioner has not been duly attested and further the revisional survey Khatiyan does not indicate that petitioner or Nanhku Singh is in possession of the lands in-question. About the entries made in Register-II it is stated that same was created in the year 1965-66 i.e. much after vesting of the intermediary interest and not in continuity of vesting. - 2 - 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid findings of the learned Director by stating that the genealogical table furnished by the petitioner may not have been attested but by remitting back the matter enquiry should have been made at the local level by the Consolidation Officer by examining the Mukhiya and others to verify the correctness of the genealogical table. About the delay in including the name of Nanhku Singh in Register-II learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that delay caused in entering the name of Nanku Singh in Register-II- Tenant’s Ledger was on the part of the revenue authorities and for such delay petitioner or Nanku Singh cannot be held responsible. So far the objection of the Director, Consolidation that neither the petitioner nor Nanku Singh has been shown in the remarks column of the revisional Khatian to be in possession of the lands-in-question, it is said that for such correction only the jurisdiction of the Director under Section 35 of the Act was invited and had the name of the petitioner or his ancestor Nanhku Singh indicated in the remarks column there may not have been any litigation for correction of the entry. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, I am of the view that while considering the case of the petitioner under orders dated 25.05.2009, Annexure-3, learned Director erroneously refused to remit back the matter for enquiry by the Consolidation Officer under Sub-Section (7) of section 10 of the Act for actual verification as to whether the petitioner is in possession of the lands in-question through Nanku Singh on the basis of the settlement made by the ex landlord as is evident from the certified copy of the return, Annexure-1 which is dated 26.2.1955. Accordingly, I set aside the order dated 25.05.2009, passed by the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna in Cons. Revision Case No. 172 of 2008 Annexure-3 and remit back the matter to the Director, Consolidation to hear the petitioner once again and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in the light of return, Annexure-1. 5. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)