IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1634 of 2009 1. Rameshwar Bhagat 2. Ramnath Bhagat (Both Sons of Late Bhola Bhagat) 3. Ramdhari Bhagat S/O Late Biltan Bhagat, all resident of Village- Nawada, Anchal- Vaishali, P.S. Vaishali, Dist.- Vaishali ---- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Joint Director, Consolidation Vaishali at Hajipur. 4. The Deputy Director, Consolidation Vaishali at Hajipur. 5. The Assistant Consolidation officer, Vaishali at Lalganj. 6. Bahadur Bhagat, S/O Late Butan Bhagat, Resident of Village- Nawada, Anchal Vaishali, P.S. Vaishali, District- Vaishali ---- Respondents. ------- 2. 3.2.2009 Heard Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur for the petitioners, and Mr. Alok Kumar, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Advocate No.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.6.2008 (Annexure-4), passed by the learned Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna in Consolidation Revision Case No. 77 of 2007 (Rameshwar Bhagat & Ors. Vrs. Bahadur Bhagat & Ors.), whereby the revision application preferred by the present petitioners has been rejected, and the appellate order (Annexure-3) has been rejected. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2 learned appellate authority has disposed of the appeal behind the back of the petitioners. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the present respondent no.6 had preferred the appeal, was registered as Case No. 5622 of 1995 (Bahadur Bhagat Vrs. Rameshwar Bhagat & Ors.), and was allowed by order dated 13.12.1995 (Annexure- 3). Learned appellate authority has observed as follows: “foi{khx.k lwpuk rkfeyk ds I’pkr Hkh vuqif’Fkr gSa blfy, ,dif{k; lquokbZ fd;k x;k@” It is thus evident that notices have been validly served on the present petitioners, who were opposite parties before the learned appellate authority notwithstanding which they did not appear. Furthermore, the present petitioners had thereafter filed revision application belatedly. The appellate order was passed on 13.12.1995, and the revision application was filed in 2007, much beyond the period of limitation, notwithstanding which the revision application at the instance of the petitioners was entertained and considered on merits. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the grievance of the petitioners that they were not heard by the learned appellate authority which was of his own making. In so far as the remaining grievances are 3 concerned, the same is in the realm of facts which can not be entertained in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar , J.)