IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10412 of 2007 1. Shiv Prasad Singh 2. Ram Babu Singh Mahto, both sons of late Fakira Mahto 3. Shahindra Singh, son of Munsif Mahto, all residents of Village- Koili, P.S. and Anchal Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi --------- Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Consolidation Officer, Bathnaha, Sitamarhi 3. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Dist. Sitamarhi. 4. Joint Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur 5. Director of Consolidation, Patna . 6. Yogendra Prasad son of late Shingheshwar Prasad, Resident of Village and P.O. Koili, P.S. and Anchal-Bathnaha, Dist.-Sitamarhi --- --------- Respondents. ----------- 2. 17.2.2009 Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Rakesh for the petitioners, Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, learned Assistant Counsel to Additional Advocate General No. 7 for respondent nos. 1 to 5, and Mr. Durgesh Nandan for respondent no.6. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.6.2007 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned Joint Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur, in Revision Case No. 150 of 2004 (Yogendra Prasad Vrs. Sheo Prasad Singh & Ors.), 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). The learned revisional authority has set aside the order dated 22.11.2004, passed by the learned Deputy Director, Consolidation, Sitamarhi, in Appeal Case No. 2 of 2004. It is with respect to R.S. Khata No.518, Khesra No. 1466, area ½ decimals, North to Khata no. 294, Kheshra No.1465, area 2 decimals, situate in Village Koili, Thana No. 185, Anchal Bathnaha. It appears that respondent no.6 herein filed the aforesaid 2 revision application on the ground that the lands in question is Aam Rasta and, therefore, the appellate order(s) may be set aside, and it may be declared as Aam Rasta. The revision application has been allowed, the appellate order has been set aside after a discussion of the matter leading to the conclusion that the lands in question belong to the State of Bihar and are being used by the members of public as Aam Rasta. This is a finding of fact and it is difficult for this Court to disagree with the same in writ jurisdiction. In any case, learned counsel for the petitioners has not brought any material to my notice to take a different view. The impugned order, therefore, can not be faulted. The writ petition is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. )