IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11219 of 2007 1. Ayodhya Rai, s/o Baban Rai 2. Anirudh Rai, s/o late Jhulan Rai, both resident of Village-Lavangia Dih, P.S. Baghauch Ghat, in the district of Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh -- ------- Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Joint Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Deputy Director, Consolidation, Siwan 45. The Circle Officer, Kateya, Gopalganj. 5. Parma Bhagat, S/O late Raja Bhagat 6. Brigurashan Bhagat, S/O Ramdhan Bhagat 7. Dinanath Bhagat S/O Late Rajput Bhagat 8. Mukti Nath Ghagat, S/O late Rajput Bhagat 9. Saral Bhagat S/O late Rajput Bhagat 10. Kanchan Bhagat, son of late Rajpur Bhagat, all resident of Village- Dhanauti, P.S. Kateya, District-Gopalganj ------------ Respondents. -------------- 2. 18.2.2009 None appears on behalf of the petitioners. Heard learned Assistant Counsel to Government Advocate No.9. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.6.2007 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned Joint Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur in Revision case No. 52 of 2006(Anirudh Rai & Ors. Vrs.Dina Nath Rai & Ors) and 51 of 2006 (Anirudh Rai & Ors. Vrs. Parmanand Bhagat), whereby he has rejected the revision applications preferred under section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and has upheld the appellate order. It is with respect to the lands appertaining to Khata Nos. 26, 45 and 57, Thana No.160, Anchal Kateya, Village Kalyanpur. Aggrieved by the order of the learned first authority, respondent nos. 5 to 10 have preferred appeals which were allowed by the order dated 12.10.2006 (Annexure-4), passed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Siwan, in Case No. 3 of 2005(Dinanath 2 Bhagat & Ors. Vrs. Anirudh Rai & Ors) and 5 of 2005 (Parma Bhagat & Ors. Vrs. Anirudh Rai & Ors.). The learned appellate authority allowed the appeals on the ground that the rent receipts were in their names, and were in possession of the lands. It was observed that it will be open to the aggrieved party to institute a suit before the civil court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of right, title and interest. Aggrieved by the appellate order, the present petitioners preferred the revision application which has been rejected by the impugned order and the appellate order has been upheld. It appears to me that in view of the reason assigned by the learned appellate authority and the learned revisional authority, the impugned order can not be faulted. The writ petition is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. )