IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12269 of 2008 SARAJU BARAI Son of Kali Charan Barai, Resident of Village- Pakari, Tola- Khadahi, P.S. Kataya, District- Gopalganj ------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Consolidation, Government of Bihar, at L.D.B. Building, Budha Marg, Patna. 4. The Joint Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur 5. The Consolidation Officer, Kateya, District-Gopalganj 6. Mangal Barai, Son of Chokat Barai, Resident of Village- Pakari, Tola- Khadahi, P.S. Kateya, District- Gopalganj. -----------------Respondents. ----------- 2. 12.5.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has filed this application for quashing the order dated 30.1.1997 (Annexure-6) passed by the Joint Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur in Revision Case No. 87/94. In order to explain delay in filing the writ application, petitioner’s counsel submits that the impugned order is an ex parte order. Petitioner had no knowledge about the passing of this order but as soon as he came to know about the order he has come before this Court. In the writ application nowhere it has been stated that when petitioner had come to know about the impugned order. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the Revision Case No. 87/94 was earlier decided in favour of the respondents/revisionists. The petitioner approached this Court challenging the order passed in Revision by filing C.W.J.C. No. 1823 of 1995. The writ application was disposed of and the matter was remitted back to the revisional - 2 - authority for reconsideration by order dated 17.7.1995. In the light of the order passed by the High Court, the petitioner and respondents were noticed. Petitioner, who was Respondent in the Revision case appeared before the revisional authority but later on chose not to appear and contest. Finally, the case was heard in absence of the petitioner and the impugned order was passed. In this view, I find that it is not an ex parte order rather petitioner had no interest at the relevant time to pursue the matter. Considering all these facts, I find no merit in this writ application and it is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner has liberty to move for redressal of his grievance before any appropriate and competent forum. P. Kumar (Mridula Mishra, J.)