IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.377 of 2009 1. ANGARAHIT SAH 2. Moti Sah 3. Sheo Muni Ssah 4. Kanhaiya Sah, All sons of Late Lal Bihari Sah. 5. Rama Kant Sah. 6. Satyendra Sah. Both sons of Late Suraj Sah. All residents of Village & P.O. Dharkanda, P.S. Dinara, District Rohtas. (Appellants) (Petitioners in C.W.J.C. No.14612/2007) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Joint Director of Consolidation (Headquarter) Bihar, Patna. 3. The Assistant Director of Consolidation, Rohtas at Sasaram. 4. The Consolidation officer, Dinara, District Rohtas. …………….Respondent 1st Set. (Respondents 1stset in C.W.J.C.No. 14612 of 2007) 5. Kameshwar Sah, son of Late Narain Sah. 6. Kamlesh Sah, son of Late Narain Sah. 7. Ram Ashray Sah, son of Late Kesho Sah. 8. Jhuti @ Jhuri Sah, Since dead substituted by the following heirs: Nand Jee Sah S/o Late Jhuti @ Jhuri Sah. 9. Sucha Devi, wife of Lazte Gharbharan Sah. 10. Muni Devi, daughter of Late Gharbharan Sah. 11. Malti Devi, Daughter of Late Gharbharan Sah. 12. Jangi Sah, son of Late Ram Bihari Sah. 13. Bhangi Sah, son of Late Ram Bihari Sah. 14. Binod Sah, son of late Hari Sah. 15. Kedar Sah, son of Late Hari Sah. 16. Kamla Devi, daughter of Late Hari Sah 17. Meena Devi, daughter of Late Hari Sah. 18. Buchan Sah, son of Late Yadu Sah. 19. Parbatiya Kuer wife of Late Ramayan Sah. 20. Kuer Sah, son of late Ramayan Sah. 21. Sumeshwar Sah, son of Late Ramayan Sah. 22. Sonia Devi, daughter of Late Ramayan Sah. 23. Binda Devi daughter of Late Ramayan Sah 24. Awadhesh Sah, son of Late Ram Ekbal Sah 25. Mostt. Kalawati Kuer, wife of Late Ram Ekbal Sah. All are residents of village and P.O. Dharkandha (Daiya Dalsi) P.S. Dinara, District Rohtas. …………..Respondent 2nd set. (Respondents 2nd set in C.W.J.C.No. 14612 of 2007). ----------- 9 10.1.2011 Having heard counsel for the appellants as also taking into account the nature of order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is 2 called for, inasmuch as, admittedly the appeal before the Consolidation authority by the appellants against an order dated 18.5.1982 passed by the Consolidation officer was filed by them only in the year 1998. The Revisional authority therefore had rightly held such time barred appeal ought to have not been entertained by the Appellate Authority much less allowed and that too without any order of the appellate authority condoning the delay. Counsel for the appellant has however invited our attention to the alleged application seeking condonation of delay of 18 years in filing of the appeal and has submitted that no judicial review could be made in the matter of limitation. We having perused the records including the application seeking condonation of delay are satisfied that there was hardly any material to constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay of more than 18 years. In that view of the matter, when the statute itself prescribes limitation period of 30 days for filing the appeal the appellate authority could not have decided the appeal on merit without even condoning the delay. Thus the view taken by the Revisional authority and affirmance by the learned Single Judge cannot be held to be bad. That being so, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Abhay Kumar (T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) 3