IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17135 of 2007 1. Ramdeo Rai, son of late Shiban Rai. 2. Ramchandra Rai alias Prasad, son of late Fekan Rai. 3. Haribansh Rai, son of late Fekan Rai. 4. Hanslal Rai, son of late Fekan Rai. 5. Banslal Rai, son of late Fekan Rai. 6. Most. Karam Jyoti Devi, wife of late Fekan Rai. 7. Shail Devi, wife of Ramdhyan Rai and daughter of Fekan Rai. 8. Lachhan Devi, wife of Kapildeo Rai, and daughter of Fekan Rai. 9. Manteran Devi, wife of Raj Mangal Rai and daughter of Fekan Rai. All resident of village- Madhopur Roshan alias Bhisa, Police Station- Dumra, District- Sitamarhi. ..... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Joint Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur. 3. Consolidation Officer, Dumra, Sitamarhi. 4. Krishna Kumar Gupta alias Behan Prasad, son of late Sukhdeo Narain Gupta. Resident of Village- Sitamarhi, Town – Mohalla- Bhaleedepur Ward No.14, Police Station and District- Sitamarhi. ..1st party- respondent. 5. Gangu Rai, son of Devan Rai. 6. Ranjinish Rai, son of Devan Rai. 7. Nagendra Rai, son of late Rameshwar Rai. 8. Laxmi Rai, son of late Rameshwar Rai. 9. Yogendra Rai, son of late Rameshwar Rai. All resident of village- Madhopur Roshan alias Bhisa, Police Station- Dumra, District- Sitamarhi. ....2nd party- Respondents. ----------- 02- 17.3.2009 IA No. 2535 of 2008: Heard Mr. B K Bariar for the petitioners, and learned AC to Govt. Advocate no.IX.. Learned counsel for the petitioners presses this interlocutory application, wherein it is stated that respondent no.6 (Ramjinish Rai) died on 30.3.2008, leaving behind his heirs mentioned in paragraph -5 of this application. The present application has been filed on 29.4.2008. Let the name of respondent no.6 be - 2 - expunged and be substituted by his heirs mentioned in paragraph -5 of this application. IA No. 2535 of 2008 is accordingly disposed of. IA No. 528 of 2009: 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners presses this interlocutory application, wherein it is stated that petitioner no.4 (Hanslal Rai) died on 12.11.2008, leaving behind his heir mentioned in paragraph -5 of this application. Let the name of deceased petitioner no.4 be expunged and be substituted by his heir mentioned in paragraph -5 of this application, who has already entered appearance through counsel and filed duly executed Vakalatnama. IA No. 528 of 2009 is accordingly disposed of. 3. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.8.2007 (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, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), whereby he has allowed the revision application preferred by respondent nos.4 to 9. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that respondent no.3 had disposed of the matter by his order dated 5.8.1988 (Aannexure-2), passed by respondent no.3 whereby the objections raised by the present petitioners were rejected. The petitioners preferred appeal which was allowed by order dated 6.11.1989 (Annexure-3). Aggrieved by this order, respondent nos.4 to 9 herein preferred revision application bearing Revision Case No.328 - 3 - of 1990. The same was allowed. Aggrieved by the order, the present petitioners preferred C.W.J.C. No.3645 of 1994, which was in its turn allowed by this Court by order dated 7.9.1995. The said order of the learned revisional authority was set aside and the matter was remitted back to him for a fresh consideration in accordance with law and the observations made therein. In due observance of the order of this Court, respondent no.2 has passed the impugned order. It appears on a perusal of the same that he has disposed of the matter on the basis of the judgment of the civil court in T.S. No.181 of 1937. The impugned order cannot, therefore, be faulted. 5. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar) mrl/S.K.Pathak