IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.410 of 2010 1.Most. Kismat Bibi W/o late Sahajada Khan 2.Most. Rakumun Bibi W/o late Badasahajada Khan 3. Most. Ajaibun Bibi W/o Late Abdul Gaffar Khan 4. Most. Sadarun Nisa W/o late Ashdolah Khan 5. Most. Dulhin Sorwari Begam W/o Rafullah Khan 6. Ijhar Khan son of late Nasarullah Khan 7. Dulhin Masihan Bibi W/o Samullah Khan 8. Most. Basiran Bibi W/o late Niyaz Khan 9. Md. Soikat Khan son of late Niyaz Khan 10. Most. Munibun Bibi W/o late Nisar Khan All 1 t0 10 are resident of village and P.O. Tajpur Kurrah, P.S. Dildar Nagar, District Ghazipur (Uttar Pradesh) ………..Appellants Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Land Revenue and Reform, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Land Revenue and Reform, Bihar, Patna 4. The Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna 5. The Collector, Kaimur (Bhabha), Distt. Kaimur 6. The Additional Collector, Kaimur (Bhabua) District Kaimur 7. The Circle Officer, Ramgarh, Distt. Kaimur ……….Respondents ----------- 4 17.3.2011 The appellants have preferred this appeal against the order dated 27.10.2009 passed in C.W.J.C.No.13937 of 2009 whereby the learned Single Judge remitted the matter to the Director, Consolidation for giving hearing to the writ petitioners also and revision application afresh. 2. The facts of the case in short are that the appellants had filed an application before the Consolidation Officer for recording their names in the record of right in respect of 2 land in question. The Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of the appellants. They filed an appeal before the Deputy Director, Consolidation which too was rejected. Thereafter they filed revision before the Director, Consolidation which was allowed. The respondent Kedar Nath Ram and Smt. Kawal Pati Devi being aggrieved by the order of the Director, Consolidation filed C.W.J.C.No.13937 of 2009. They assailed the order of Director, Consolidation dated 2.4.2009 on the ground that the same was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to them. They claimed that already the land in question had been settled with them and purchas has been issued in their favour by the Collector of the district. The learned Single Judge thus directed the Director, Consolidation to hear the writ petitioner by way of review of its order. The learned Single Judge granted the writ petitioners liberty to annex the copy of the purchas and other documents in support of their contention. 3. Now it has been turn of the respondents of the writ petition to challenge the order of learned Single Judge in this Letters Patent Appeal. They state that the aforesaid order was passed without providing an opportunity of 3 KHAN hearing to them. They further state that the Director, Consolidation does not have power of review. 4. We have heard counsel for the appellants as well as counsel for the State. We find that the appellants in no way would be prejudiced by the order of the learned Single Judge whereby the matter has been remitted to the Director, Consolidation to hear the matter afresh by giving an opportunity to writ petitioner as well as appellant. The learned Single Judge noticed that the Director, Consolidation had passed the order dated 2.4.2009 without affording of an opportunity to the appellants who claimed to be Purchas holder of the land. The learned Judge has not decided the case on merit. 5. Thus this court disposes of this appeal with liberty to both sides to place their cases before the Director, Consolidation. The Consolidation Revision Application No.24 of 2007 stands revived. (S.K. Katriar,J) (S.P.Singh,J) 4