IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13156 of 2007 Hari Ram @ Hari Chamar, son of late Gauri Ram, Resident of village- Karagahar, P.O. and P.S.- Karagahar, District- Rohtas. .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna. 3. Joint Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna. 4. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rohtas at Sasaram. 5. Consolidation Officer, Karagahar, District- Rohtas at Sasaram. 6. Nimiki Ram, son of Ram Ashish Ram, resident of Village + P.O. and P.S.- Karagahar, District- Rohtas. ..... Respondents. ----------- 02- 26.02.2009 Heard Mr. Surendra Kumar Choubey for the petitioner, and learned assistant counsel to Mr. Satyadeo Kumar, Standing Counsel No.12 for respondent nos.1 to 5. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.5.2007 (Annexure-4), passed by the learned Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna, in Revision Case No.150 of 2000 (Nimki Ram Vs. Hari Chamar), whereby the revision application preferred by respondent no.6 herein, in terms of Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, has been allowed, the order of the learned appellate authority has been set aside, and that of the learned Consolidation Officer has been restored. 2 2. It is with respect to C.S. Plot No. 1619, R.S. Plot No.2358 appertaining to C.S. Khata no.232, R.S. Khata no.390, covering an area of one katha, situate at Mauza- Karagahar, P.S. Kargahar, District- Rohtas. Respondent no.6 filed an application before the learned Consolidation Officer, Karagahar, with the prayer to enter his name with respect to the land in question in the revenue records. The same was allowed by order dated 22.3.1977 (Annexure-2), passed in Case No.1357 of 1976/141 of 1977, the land was directed to be recorded in the name of respondent no.6. The petitioner preferred appeal which was allowed by order dated 18.8.2000 (Annexure-3), passed by the learned Assistant Director of Consolidation, Rohtas, Sasaram, in Appeal No.14 of 1999-2000 (Hari Chamar Vs. Nimki Ram), whereby the order of the learned Consolidation Officer was set aside, the land in question was directed to be recorded in the name of the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order, respondent no.6 preferred revision application which has been allowed by the impugned order. It has been so allowed on the ground that the petitioner as well as respondent no.6 had purchased the same 3 plot of land from the same owner. The learned revisional authority has also noticed that the appeal was hopelessly time-barred, notwithstanding which the same was entertained without application of mind to the question of delay. It appears to me that the matter raises issues relating to right, title and interest with respect to the land in question which cannot be adjudicated by the authorities under the Act. 3. The writ is dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to institute a suit in civil court of competent jurisdiction. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/