IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14733 of 2009 SRI BRIJNARAYAN RAM SON OF SRI GANPAT RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. AKHINI, POLICE STATION RAMGARH, OLD DISTRICT ROHTAS, NEW DISTRICT KAIMUR. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 4. THE CONSOLIDATION OFFICER, RAMGARH, OLD DISTRICT ROHTAS, NEW KAIMUR. 5. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, RAMGARH, KAIMUR. 6. MOSMAT KISMAT BIBI WIDOW OF LATE SAHAJADA KHAN. 7. MOSMAT RAKIMUN BIBI WIDOW OF LATE ABDUL GAFFAR KHAN. 8. MOSMAT SADARUN NISA WIDOW OF LATE ASHDULLAH KHAN. 9. DULHIN SARWARI BEGAM WIFE OF RAFULLAH KHAN. 10. IJAHAR KHAN SON OF LATE NASARULLAH KHAN. 11. DULHIN MASIHAN BIBI WIFE OF SAMULLAH KHAN. 12. MOSMAT BASIRAN BIBI WIDOW OF LATE NIYAJ KHAN. 13. MOHAMMAD SAUKAT KHAN SON OF LATE NIYAJ KHAN. 14. MOSMAT MUNIBUN BIBI SON OF LATE NISAR KHAN. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TAJPUR KUMRAH, POLICE STATION DILDAR NAGAR, DISTRICT GHAZIPUR (UTTER PRADESH). ... ... RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 5.11.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Director Consolidation, Bihar, patna dated 2.4.2009 where under he has allowed Consolidation Revision Case No.24 of 2007 and has thereby issued direction to record the lands of the petitioner bearing Plot No.2520 appertaining to Khata No.431 Area 92 decimals of village Akhni, Thana No.235 as - 2 - the lands of private respondent Most. Kismat Bibi and others. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid order of the Director Consolidation has been passed without even impleading the petitioner as a party in the aforesaid revision case as also ignoring the fact that the aforesaid land was not even the subject matter in Objection Case No.106 of 1984-85 which was filed by Most. Kismat Bibi before the Consolidation Officer and disposed of under orders dated 7.1.1985 dismissing her objection on the ground of bar under Section 10-A of the Act as also the appellate order passed by the Assistant Director Consolidation in Appeal No.1093 of 1984- 85 dismissed under orders dated 8.1.1988/1.12.1988 (Annexure-3). With reference to the aforesaid two orders, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the lands of the petitioner which was not the subject matter of the original proceeding as also the appellate proceeding should not have been included in the revision application without impleading the petitioner as a party respondent in the revision. Let the petitioner invite the attention - 3 - N.H./ of the Director Consolidation towards the Parcha (Annexure-4) as also to the fact that the lands included in the said Parcha, has been directed to be recorded in the name of Most. Kismat Bibi under the impugned order dated 2.4.2009 (Annexure-1) without even notice to the petitioner and if the learned Director is satisfied that the lands included in the Parcha (Annexure-4) were not the subject matter of the original and the appellate proceeding as is reflected from orders Annexures 2 and 3 as also without impleading and notice to the petitioner as a party respondent in Revision Case No.24 of 2007. The said lands have been directed to be recorded in the name of Most. Bibi Kismat, then the Director shall issue notice to Most. Kismat Bibi and others and after hearing the petitionerand Most. Kismat Bibi and others pass appropriate orders in accordance with law giving reasons in support of his orders. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. ( V.N. Sinha,J.)