IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16676 of 2007 1. HARI LAL MAHTO 2. Hira Mahto 3. Kamal Mahto - Nos. 1 to 3 sons of Late Baleshwsar Mahto 4. Siya Lal Mahto 5. Laxmi Mahto 6. Lal Babu Mahto 7. Umesh Mahto 8. Mahesh Mahto - Nos. 4 to 8 sons of Late Radhe Mahto All residents of Village Bishambharpur, Ali Leth, PD (Old) Sarairanjan (New), Musri Gharari, Distt. Samastipur ………… Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Joint Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur 3. The Deputy Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur 4. Banarasi Devi D/o Late Manrup Sah and wife of Late Anup Lal Sah, resident of Village and Post Saidpur Jahid,PS Ujiarpur, District Samastipur 5. Devaki Devi D/o Late Manrup Sah W/o Prabhu Sah, resident of Village and PO Ram Nagar Chachal, PS Ujiarpur, District Samastipur 6. Ramashish Sah, son of Late Manrup Sah, Resident of Village – Bishambharpur, Aliloth, PS (old) Sarairanjan (New) Musri Gharari, Distt.Samastipur………. Respondents ----------- 02- 16.3.2009 Heard Mr. Syed Firoz Raza for the petitioners, and Mr. Rakesh Ambastha, learned AC to AAG V. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.9.2007 (Annexure 1), passed by respondent no.2 in purported exercise of powers under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, whereby the revision application preferred by respondent nos. 4 to 6 herein has been allowed with the following observations:- “foi{kh vxj pkgs rks oa”kh ds ukrh ds }kjk dh xbZ fucaf/kr dsokyk dks [kafMr djus gsrq O;ogkj U;k;ky; tk ldrs gSA bl U;k;ky; dks dsokyk [kafMr djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA foi{kh dh ekSf[kd dsokyk dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA” The present petitioners were opposite parties before the learned - 2 - revisional authority. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. I do not feel the necessity of issuing notices to respondent nos. 4 to 6 herein in view of the nature of the order that we are going to pass because the present order does not seek to alter the impugned order to the prejudice of respondent nos. 4 to 6. It is clarified that it is inherent in the aforesaid observations of the learned trial court that it will be open to the petitioners herein to institute a suit for comprehensive adjudication of all the issues in the matter including the question whether or not the executant of the sale deed in question is the genuine grandson (naati) of Banshi, or an imposter. 3. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. ( S K Katriar ) mrl