IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.791 of 2010 1. Krishna Kumar Pandey, son of Kanhaiya Pandey 2. Kamla Devi, wife of Krishna Pandey Both are resident of Village- Jamunidihra, Post Office- Manikpur, Police Station- Rajpur, District- Buxar. ……Petitioners- Appellants. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bhojpur at Ara. 4. The Consolidation Officer, Anchal- Rajpur, District- Buxar. 5. Phool Mati Devi, wife of Raj Narayan Singh, resident of Village- Jamunidihra, Post Office- Manikpur, Police Station- Rajpur, District- Buxar. 6. Ramesh Pandey, son of Kanhaiya Pandey, resident of Village- Jamunidihra, Post Office- Manikpur, Police Station- Rajpur, District- Buxar. ……. Respondents- Respondents. ----------- For the Appellants: Dr. Maya Nand Jha with Mr. Anil Kumar Roy, Advocates. For the S t a t e: Ms. Divya Verma, A.C. to AAG-3. ******* 02- 22.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No.5566 of 2010, and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 1.4.2010, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed. 2 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Respondent no.5 of the writ proceedings was the petitioner before the Director of Consolidation in a proceeding under section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act 1956, which was allowed. The writ petitioners (appellants herein) challenged the same by preferring the aforesaid writ petition which has been dismissed. The writ petitioners raise issues of facts which have been discussed and adjudicated by the learned revisional authority, being the last forum of facts. We agree with the findings recorded by the learned revisional authority, and have been rightly affirmed by the learned Single Judge. The issues are concluded by findings of facts. 3. This appeal is dismissed. (S.K. Katriar, J.) (S.P. Singh, J.) S.K.Pathak/