IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13308 of 2008 Nanhku Prajapati @ Nanku Prajapati, son of Late Karu Prajapati, village Akauna, PS Amas, District Gaya – Petitioner. Vs. (1) The State of Bihar through the Director Consolidation, Bihar, Patna. (2) The Joint Director Consolidation, Magadh Division, Gaya. (3) The Consolidation Officer, Amas, Gaya. (4) Tetar Mistri, son of Late Raghuni Mistri, village Akauna, PS Amas, District Gaya – Respondents. … For the petitioner : Mr. Om Prakash Upadhyay and Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Upadhyay, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Mayank Rukhaiyar, A.C. to G.A. V. For respondent no.4 : Mr. K.N. Choubey, Senior Advocate, Mr. A. N. Choubey, Mr. Siddharth Harsh, Mr. Gopal Swaroop Dubey and Mr. Ritu Priyadarshi, Advocates. … 4 20-7-2010 The matter relates to allotment of Chak which took place way back in 1990 under the Consolidation Act. Form 17 was distributed amongst the raiyats of village Akauna and after preparation of Chaks, possession was handed over to the concerned parties. Chak No. 628 measuring 99 decimals was given to the petitioner, from the land of respondent no. 4 and two others, namely, Md. Hussain and Abdul Aziz, with the consent and consultation of the Village Advisory Committee, likewise respondent no. 4 got chak plot no. 601 having an area of 1.77 decimals. During the relevant time respondent no. 4 was a member of the Village Advisory Committee which would appear from Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The petitioner is aggrieved by order passed the Joint Director on 16.4.2008 in Case No. 53/2005. Respondent no. 4 after fifteen years filed an application saying that the Chaks had been wrongly allotted to the petitioner on the ground that the valuation of the land of the respondent was higher 2 than the value of land of the petitioner. On perusal of the valuation report contained in Annexure 6 it appears that the value of the lands are the same and, therefore, interference under section 35 of the Consolidation Act is unwarranted. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 has argued that the power to revise the order under section 35 of the Act envisages that if any material is brought to the notice of the revisional authority to indicate that there has been an illegality in the previous order, the revisional authority can interfere suo motu or on an application filed by any of the parties. The proposition cannot be doubted. However, there should be a good reason for the revisional authority to interfere with the allotment of chaks. In the present case not only there is no disparity with respect to the lands in question but the petitioner has been in possession of the land by virtue of a proceeding, which was concluded in 1990 and to top it all respondent no. 4 participated in the said proceeding and was in fact a member of the Advisory Committee. Therefore, in the aforesaid facts interference under section 35 of the act, in my opinion, is completely unwarranted. In any event this court in several cases has held that normally the court should not interfere with the order relating to allotment of Chaks. Accordingly, the order, dated 16.4.2008 passed in Case No. 53 of 2005 is quashed and this writ petition is allowed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)