IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14612 of 2007 1. Angarhit Sah. 2. Moti Sah. 3. Sheo Muni Sah. 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 and P.O. Dharkanda, P.S. Dinara, District- Rohtas. .... Petitioners. 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. 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 Sah @ Jhuri Sah, son of Late Sheo Pujan Sah. 9. Sudha Devi, wife of Late 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. 2 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 (Dariya Dosi), P.S. Dinara, District-Rohtas. ...Respondent 2nd Set. ----------- 02- 2.3.2009 Heard Mr. Ras Bihari Thakur for the petitioners, and learned assistant counsel to Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, Government Pleader No.16. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.4.2007 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned Joint Director of Consolidation (Headquarter), Bihar, Patna, in Revision Case No.60 of 1999 (Anugrahit Sah and others Vs. Narain Sah and others), in purported exercise of powers under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), whereby the revision application preferred by the present petitioners has been rejected on the ground that their appeal disposed of by respondent no.3 was time-barred. The learned Government Counsel has supported the impugned order. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of 3 learned counsel for the parties. The following lands are in question are in dispute: ekStk Fkkuk ua0 [krk ua. [ksljk ua0 jdok /kjdU/kk 56 156 664 0.45 156 665 0.65 666 0.62 667 0.52 668 0.46 2.70 3. The matter was initially registered as Case No.51 of 1974/19 of 1968 under Section 10(2) of the Act before respondent no.4. He passed an order on merits which in substance was that the land in question would be recorded half and half between the two contesting parties. Aggrieved by this order, the present petitioners had filed appeal which was considered by respondent no.3 on merits and was rejected by order dated 25.1.1999 (Annexure-2). The same was upheld by the learned revisional authority by his order dated 28.1.2000. The Aggrieved party moved this Court by preferring C.W.J.C. No.3881 of 2000 (Narain Sah and others Vs. The State of Bihar and others), which was dismissed by order dated 31.7.2003 (Annexure- 11), and the private respondents herein were directed to move the civil court. They 4 preferred L.P.A. No.830 of 2003 (Narain Sah & others Vs. The State of Bihar and others), which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 25.11.2003 (Annexure-12), whereby the said order dated 31.7.2003 (Annexure-11 herein) was set aside on the ground that the question of limitation ought to have been considered by the revisional authority. In that view of the matter, the said order dated 28.1.2000 was set aside, the matter was remitted back to respondent no.2 for consideration of the issue(s) in accordance with law and the observations made therein. On remand, the learned revisional authority has considered the matter. He has rejected the revision application preferred by the present petitioners by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioners had preferred appeal after a lapse of 16 years. The delay was unexplained and, therefore, the appellate authority should have rejected the same on the ground of limitation and should not have disposed of the matter on merits. 4. It appears to me that the view taken in the impugned order is a possible view. He has rightly come to the conclusion 5 that the delay of 16 years in preferring the appeal was unexplained. I would prefer to uphold the view taken by the learned revisional authority. 5. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/