IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11266 of 2007 1. Brij Bihari Dhobi, son of Late Lal Mohan Dhobi. 2. Ram Bhawan Dhobi, son of Late Lal Mohan Dhobi. 3. Bachan Jee Dhobi, son of Late Ras Bihari Dhobi. All are residents of village- Kusurpa, P.S. Rajpur, District- Buxar. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the District Collector, Buxar at Buxar. 2. The Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Joint Director of Consolidation (H.Q.), Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bhojpur at Ara. 5. The Consolidation Officer, Rajpur, District- Buxar. 6. The Assistant Consolidation Officer, Rajpur, District- Buxar. .... Respondent 1st set. 7. Raj Roshan Pathak, son of Ram Badan Pathak, resident of village- Kusurpa, P.O. Sareya, P.S.- Rajpur, District- Buxar. ... Respondent 2nd set. ----------- 02- 19.2.2009 Heard Mr. Rash Bihari Thakur for the petitioners, and Mr. Bajrangi Lal, learned assistant counsel to Government Advocate No.8. We have not felt the necessity of issuing notice to respondent no.7 in view of the nature of the order that we are going to pass. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.3.2007 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned Joint Director of Consolidation (Headquarter), Bihar, Patna, in Revision Case 2 No.2735 of 1989 (Brij Bihari Dhobi Vs. The State of Bihar), and the analogous Revision Case No.812 of 1990 (Raj Raushan Pathak Vs. the State of Bihar), in purported exercise of powers under Section-35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. 2. The petitioner claims right, title and interest with respect to R.S. Plot No.183, appertaining to R.S. Khata no.126, situate at village-Kusurpa, P.S.- Rajpur, District-Buxar. The petitioner had earlier moved this Court by preferring C.W.J.C. No.7811 of 1994, which was disposed of by order dated 24.1.1997 (Annexure- 11), whereby the matter was remitted back to the learned revisional authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law, and after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. The order was passed in view of the position that that the petitioners were not heard earlier. The learned revisional authority has consequently passed the impugned order whereby he has dismissed the revision application and has found as follows: “;fn fookfnr Hkwfe HkwriwoZ tehankj n~okjk cUnkscLr dh tk pqdh Fkh 3 rks mDr Hkwfe dks tehankjh mUewyu ds i’pkr iqu% ljdkj nokjk cUnkscLr djus dk dksb vkSfpR; ugh izrhr gksrk gS@“ 3. It is, therefore, evident that the right, title and interest with respect to the land in question vests with respondent no.7 herein. In that view of the matter, it is not possible to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the learned revisional authority. 4. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/