IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 9952 of 2011 Basudeo Mishtri, son of late Chandrika Lohar, resident of village – Gahua, Post Office + Police Station – Haspura, District - Aurangabad - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Land Reforms, Patna 2 The Joint Director, Consolidation, Magadh Division, Gaya 3 Srimati Ramdulari Devi @ Dulari Devi, wife of Guput Mistry, resident of village – Gahua, Post Office and Police Station – Haspura, District – Aurangabad - Respondents ----------- 2 28.06.2011 By this writ petition, petitioner challenges the order dated 30.12.2010 passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation, Magadh Division, Gaya in Revision Case No 57 of 2010, as contained in Annexure-1. Heard Mr K N Chaube, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the writ petition and perused the impugned order. The impugned order is substantially based on two grounds. Firstly, the learned Joint Director has noted that this revision application, which is under Section 35 of the Consolidation Act, was not to be entertained as it was filed more than 25 years after the final settlement of consolidation operations in respect of the lands in question. The new chaks have been prepared, possession delivered as far back as in 1985. The second ground given is that the petitioner had suffered adverse decree from competent Civil Court in matter of partition of the property. The chaks found were, accordingly, in conformity with the decree of the Civil Court. Thus, the Joint Director refused to exercise his jurisdiction in the matter. In my view, no exception can be taken to the order and it requires no interference. In the case of Mansaram –Versus- S P Pathak and Others, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 1239 and, in particular, paragraph-12 thereof 2 this is what is said. There, the Rent Controller refused to exercise his jurisdiction even though facts required him to do so as the application was made after almost 22 years. The Apex Court clearly noticed that even though there was no limitation provided in exercise of revisional power, the power would not be exercised at any time at will. With the responsibility to act non-arbitrarily goes the responsibility to act reasonably and to act reasonably would mean to act within reasonable time. Thus, in my view, there is no scope for interference in the matter. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)