Letters Patent Appeal No.686 OF 2002 **************** Against the Judgment and Order dated 22.08.2001 passed in C.W.J.C. No.11774 of 1999 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS----------------------------(Appellant) Versus DHRUB DAYAL MAHTO-------------------------------(Respondents) ----------- For the Appellants: Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Gupta………. Standing Counsel No. V For the Respondent: P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.PRASAD The learned Single Judge, who passed the Judgment and Order under appeal, according to us, correctly construed the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 2 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holding & Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, while declaring that in terms of the provisions contained therein it is either the Additional Collector of Consolidation or Joint Director of Consolidation appointed by the State Government, who is competent to discharge the duties and functions of the Director of Consolidation including his powers under Section 35 of the Act. The learned judge, however, did not notice Sub section (2) of Section 34 of the Act, whereby and under the Director of Consolidation with the sanction of the State Government may delegate any of his powers to an Officer, not below the rank of Deputy Collector. Be that as it may, it was not Barin Ghosh & C.M. Prasad, JJ. 2 brought on the records of the writ petition, nor any attempt has been made to bring on record of the present appeal, any notification issued by the Director of Consolidation with the sanction of the State Government delegating his power of revision granted to him by Section 35 of the Act to the Deputy Director of consolidation, who purported to exercise the power of revision granted to the Director of consolidation by Section 35 of the Act. Accordingly, the conclusion would be the same, as has been held by the learned Single Judge in the judgment and order under appeal and accordingly there is no scope of interference. We, therefore, refuse the oral prayer made on behalf of the appellant for dispensation of filing of a certified copy of the judgment and order under appeal and at the same time refuse to condone the delay of about 8 months in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Patna High Court The 20th August, 2008. Mkr./N.A.F.R. (Barin Ghosh, J.) (C.M. Prasad, J.)