CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.6452 OF 1991 1. MOSSTT.DIP KUMARI, widow of Banshi Bhagat. 2. Girija Bhagat son of late Banshi Bhagat, resident of village Obra, P.S. Obra, District – Aurangabad. 3. Dulari Devi widow of late Jagnarayan Bhagat, resident of village – Berhna, P.S. Deo, district – Aurangabad. 4. Jasomati Devi, wife of Hari Bhatat, resident of village, Singhur, P.S. Deo, District – Aurangabad. 5. Kulanjani Devi, widown of late Baijnath Bhagat, resident of village – Bini, Nabinagar, District – Aurangabad. --------------------- Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Joint Director of Consolidation, Magadh Division, Gaya at Gaya, District – Gaya. 3. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gaya, District – Gaya. 4. Consolidation Officer, Obra, District – Aurangabad. 5. (i) Mostt. Gandari Kuer, Widow of Hussaini Bhagat. (ii) Baijnath Bhagat, S/o – Late Hussaini Bhagat (iii) Rabindra Bhagat, S/o - Late Hussaini Bhagat ---------------- Respondents. ---------------------- For The Petitioner : Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ramashish, Adv. Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, Adv. For The Respondent : Mr. Sateyendra Kumar Jha, J.C. to A.A.G 7. ------------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ******************* A. K. Tripathi, J. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. There is no representation on behalf of the private respondents. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 23.08.1991, which has been passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation and is Annexure – 1 to the writ application. The order impugned has been passed in exercise of power under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. - 2 - Submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that the Joint Director, Consolidation cannot exercise authority beyond the ambit of the power. The private respondents after having lost the case before the Consolidation Officer contained in Annexure – 2, filed an appeal before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Gaya. The appeal was dismissed as being time barred and also the fact that no condonation application was filed against the delayed filing of the appeal. Not only this when an earlier order was passed by the Consolidation Officer against the private respondents as he chose not to appear on the date concerned. On a restoration application filed after much delay the same was dismissed and no appeal was filed against that order. Contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that if the appeal was dismissed for this reason, then there is no occasion for the Joint Director, Consolidation to expand the ambit of the adjudication and go into the merits of the matter and decide afresh even without discussing the correctness or otherwise of the order passed in appeal. There is no discussion as to how the appellate order was in error and beyond the ambit of law. Another contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that there is evidence on record contained in Annexure – 2, which is a finding that the land in question was a dwelling house and these petitioners were in occupation of the - 3 - same. Therefore a homestead land could have never fall within the ambit of adjudication. Both the above points urged by learned senior counsel for the petitioners have not been dealt with by the Revisional Authority. The Revisional Authority has taken up the matter in its entirety and has decided to adjudicate upon the issue as if it was the first court of jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, the court has difficulty in sustaining the impugned order contained in Annexure – 1, the same is quashed. The writ application is allowed. Patna High Court The 22nd day of December, 2008, NAFR/AFR Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)