IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.97 of 2009 1. RAM KUMAR TIWARY & 2. Ram Govind Tiwary Both sons of late Raj Ballam Tiwari, residents of Village- Parasia, P.S.- Brahmpur, District- Buxar (new), old District- Bhojpur. . . . . . Respondents 5 & 6 – Appellants. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Consolidation Officer, Brahmpur, Distt- Buxar (Old District- Bhojpur), 3. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bhojpur 4. Joint Director of Consolidation, Bihar at Patna . . . . . (Respondents 1 to 4)- Respts. 1 to 4 5. Shree Ram Tiwari 6. Shree Sita Ram Tiwari 7. Shree Krishna Tiwary 8. Rajni Kant Tiwari All sons of Pandit Gurudeo Tiwary, resident of Vill.- Parasia, P.S. Brahmpur, Dist.-Buxar, present Add. Barki Bazar, P.S. & District- Buxar. . . . . . . (Petitioners)- Respondents. 9. Kedar Nath Tiwari 10. Kameshar Nath Tiwari 11. Ashok Kumar Tiwari All sons of Late Sri Kant Tiwari (deceased now) Residents of Village- Parasia, P.S.- Brahmpur, District- Buxar. Present Address- Barki Bazar, P.S. & District- Buxar. 12. Kamla Devi Daughter of late Shree Kant Tiwari, wife of Anant Deo Upadhyay, resident of M.P./76, Kailashpuri, P.S.- Kotwali, Mugalsarai, Distt- Chandauli, U.P. 13. Bimla Devi Daughter of Srikant Tiwary, Wife of Mritunjay Mishra, resident of Dhus Kash, P.S.- Ali Nagar, P.O.-Kasi, District- Chandauli, U.P. . . . . . . Substituted Petitioners- Respondents- Respondents. ----------- 4/ 02.09.2009 Heard the parties. The writ court has set aside the revisional order dated 15.03.1998 passed by Joint Director, Consolidation in Revision Case No. 3091 of 1984 after hearing the parties and noticing that the private respondents, who are appellants herein did not assert their right for many a decades while the survey operations and later the consolidation proceeding was going on for many years culminating into a final publication of record of rights. The authority under the - 2 - Consolidation Act relied upon Section 10(B) of the Consolidation Act to reject the belated application filed on behalf of appellants. The writ court has also considered the case on merits and the sole argument raised on behalf of the appellants on merits was that a writ petitioner Ram Kumar Tiwary was minor when he executed a mortgage deed and therefore the case of the writ petitioners should be disbelieved. This fact relating to merits of the matter has also been considered by the writ court in proper perspective and it has rightly been held that many times age in the School records is shown to be less and on that account alone a deed of mortgage cannot be declared ineffective. Besides that, no other argument and material was relied upon on behalf of the appellants before the writ court. Considering all the facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal, it is, accordingly dismissed. If the appellants have any remedy under law they will be at liberty to peruse their remedy. Uday/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)