IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.8288 of 2008 1. Mahendra Pratap Singh 2. Awadhesh Singh 3. Ram Pravesh Singh 4. Brahma Singh All four sons of late Mukhram Singh 5. Prem Shankar Singh 6. Sanjay Singh Both sons of late Sakal Raj Singh All residents of village Jewari, P.O. Pachilikhi, P.S. Durgawati, district Kaimur at Bhabhua .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna, Bhumi Vikash Bank Bhawan, Buddha Marg, Patna 3. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rohtas at Sasaram 4. The Consolidation Officer, Durgawati, Kaimur, Bhabhua 5. Udai Pratap Singh 6. Surendra Singh 7. Munna Singh All three sons of late Ram Chandra Singh 8. Champa Kuar, wife of lte Ram Chandra Singh All residents of village Jewari Anchal, P.S. Durgawati, P.O. Pachilakhi, district Kaimur, Bhabhua .. Respondents **** /2/ 23.04.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioners, private respondents 5 to 8 and the State. 2. This application was filed for quashing the order, - 2 - dated 25.03.2008, passed by the Director, Consolidation, Patna, in Revision Case No. 103 of 2003, whereby the earlier consent order of exchange of land through process of the Court has been nullified. Petitioners’ further prayer was for a direction to respondents not to interfere with the exclusive possession of the parties over the land exchanged through the process of the Court. Subject matter of the dispute is lands of village Jewari, P.S. Durgawati, C.S. khata no. 97, plot no. 223, measuring 1 acres 5 decimals, village Pachilikhi, C.S. khata no. 161, plot no. 334, measuring 52 decimals and plot no. 335 measuring 53 decimals as well as land of village Jewari appertaining to khata no. 97, plot no. 236, measuring 00.25 decimals and plot no. 239, measuring .80 decimals. Earlier before the Consolidation Officer in Case No. 182/1613/1989-1990 and Case No. 123/1614/1989-1990. Petitioners and respondents 5 to 8 had entered into a compromise. On the basis of that compromise an exchange of lands were made and both the parties, on the basis of consent order, agreed for exchange of land and came in possession over the exchanged lands. After several years in the year 2002 respondents 5 to 8 filed - 3 - Revision Case No. 103 of 2003 before the Director, Consolidation, whereby the earlier consent order was challenged. By the impugned order respondent no. 2 nullified the consent order passed by the consolidation officers. 3. During the pendency of this application, again, a joint compromise petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners as well as respondents 5 to 8 wherein two Schedules have been prepared. It has been stated in the joint compromise petition that the land detailed in paragraph 9 under Schedule “A” of this compromise petition shall remain with the petitioners and the lands under Schedule “B” will exclusively be possessed by respondents 5 to 8. Both the parties will be entitled to get their names mutated appertaining to the land under their Schedule and none of the parties will claim lands allotted on the basis of compromise petition to another party. 4. Counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents 5 to 8 are present. The compromise petition has been signed by all parties. 5. This application is being disposed off in terms of - 4 - the compromise. The impugned order, dated 25.03.2008, passed by respondent no. 2, Director, Consolidation, is quashed. Cp:2/S.A. (Mridula Mishra, J.)