IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12086 of 2008 BANARSI PRASAD @ GODA PRASAD, Son of Shri Ram Singhashan Sahu, Resident of Village- Chatra, P.S.- Dawath, District- Rohtas -------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna 3. Pistol Singh, Son of Late Musafir Singh 4. Birbahadur Singh, Son of Late Musafir Singh 5. Phoolmati Devi, Late Ramadhar Singh 6. Sharda Kumari, Wife of Late Ramashankar Singh 7. Neena Kumari, Daughter of Late Ramadhar Singh, Wife of Rabindra Singh 8. Parvati Kumari, Daughter of Late Ramadhar Singh and minor in the case of her mother Phoolmati Devi All 3 to 8 Residents of Village- Chatra, P.S.- Dawath, District- Rohtas -------------------Respondents. ----------- 2. 12.5.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. This application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 24.3.2000 whereby two revision applications i.e., Revision Case No. 2276/1981 and Revision Case no. 2278/1981 were dismissed by the Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna, by a common order. On perusal of the impugned order it transpires that the revisional Court has dismissed revision application filed by the petitioner for the reason that petitioner was claiming his title over the disputed property on the basis of a deed of adoption. The deed of adoption was a subject in issue in Title Suit No. 195/71/1/75. The revisional Court has considered the finding of the trial Court regarding the adoption deed and mentioned it in the impugned order, - 2 - which is as follows:- “After carefully examining the evidence on record, I find that the story of adoption is false. The much published documents the deed of gift itself describe Banarsy is son of Ram Singhasan Sah. The contents also indicates that Mahesh Singh had not adopted Banarsy Prasad Sah as son, there are many other documents shows itself Banarsy as son of Ram Singhasan Sah, there is no any documents in evidence to show that any religious ceremony was performed giving Banarsy was not adopted by Mahesh Singh.” The revisional Court rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner with respect to the disputed land considering the finding of the trial Court. I find that the writ application is fit to be dismissed for another reason also. By a common order two revision applications were dismissed. The petitioner has preferred single writ application challenging the common order passed in both the revision application. Such writ applications are not maintainable. The writ application is also fit to be dismissed for the reason that after eight years of the passing of the impugned order, the present writ application has been filed without explaining the delay satisfactorily. This application is dismissed. P. Kumar (Mridula Mishra, J.)