IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12018 of 2007 1. Basdeya W/O Bahadur Kumhar 2. Lachia Devi W/O Ram Pravesh Kumhar 3. Pahwari S/o Late Baldeo Kumhar, all resident of Village- Pakhopali, P.S. Bhore District- Gopalganj. ------------ Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Director Consolidation Government of Bihar Patna. 3. The Joint Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur 4. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siwan 5. The Assistant Director of Consolidation, Siwan 6. Javarnath Kumhar 7. Ram Sajan Kumhar 8. Bhola Kumhar, respondet nos. 6 to 8 sons of Ram Suchit resident of Village- Pakhopali Police station P.O. Bhorey, District- Gopalganj ------ - Respondents. --------------- 2. 20.2.2009 Heard Mr. Kalika Nandan for the petitioners, and Mr. Nand Kumar Singh, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Pleader No.17. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8.8.2007 (Annexure-5), passed by the learned Joint Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur, in Revision Case No. 53 of 2006 (Jagarnath Kumhar & Ors. Vrs. Basdei & Ors.), whereby the revision application has been allowed, the order dated 19.9.2006 (Annexure-4), passed by the learned Deputy Director , Siwan, in Revision Case No. 111 of 1991, has been set aside, and that of the learned Consolidation Officer has been restored. The learned revisional authority has passed the impugned order 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). We do not feel the necessity of issuing notices to respondent nos. 6 to 8 in view of the nature of the order we are going to pass. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, 2 learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Deputy Director had disposed of the matter on merits by his said order dated 19.9.2006 (Annexure-4), passed in Revision Case No. 111 of 1991/Remand Case No. 01 of 2001, whereby half and half of the lands in question were allotted to the petitioners and respondent nos. 6 to 8 herein. In his submission, the order was passed on proper consideration of the materials on record, which has been set aside by the learned revisional authority by a perfunctory order and has erroneously restored that of the learned Consolidation Officer. Learned Government counsel supports the impugned order and submits that the petitioners raised issues of title which can not be entertained in writ jurisdiction. He relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Kalika Kuar alias Kalika Singh vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1989 P.L.J.R. 1203. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The proceedings are with respect to the following lands: ekStk Fkkuk [kkrk ua0 [ksljk jdok ik[kksikyh 287 39 283 23Mh0 284 11Mh0 322 04Mh0 38Mh0 Learned Deputy Director has held in his order dated 19.9.2006 that the petitioners on the one hand are entitled to 19 decimals, and respondent nos. 6 to 8 on the other are entitled to remaining 19 decimals. The learned revisional authority set aside the order, and restored that of the learned Consolidation Officer which is to the effect that the petitioners are entitled to 11 decimals and 3 respondent nos. 6 to 8 are entitled to 27 decimals. The grievances raised by the petitioners are in the realm of appreciation of facts and it is difficult for this Court to entertain the same in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. )