IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22373 of 2011 1. Surendra Kumar Pandey S/O Late Pati Ram Pandey Resident Of Vill. Bhakura, P.O- Asha Padri, P.S- Simri, Distt. Buxar. ---Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar . 2. The Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Joint Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Director, Consolidation, Bhojpur, Buxar. 5. The Consolidation Officer, Simri, Buxar. 6. The Assistant Consolidation Officer, Bhojpur/ Buxar. ---Respondents. ---------------------------------- 03 23.12.2011 Heard Mr. Shreekant Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Apurva Kumar, learned A.C to S.C.10 for the State. At a very belated stage the petitioner approached the respondent Director under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 directly for setting aside all the steps taken hitherto by the consolidation authorities and to remit the case to the village advisory committee to take a decision with regard to valuation of the land. According to the petitioner, the village in question, namely, Bhakura in the District of Buxar had three categories of land. Certain disputes with regard to decision of the advisory committee under the Act to allocate the land for ‘Rasta’ was also raised. The respondent Director called for a report from the concerned authorities whereafter came to the following conclusions:- Þbl iqujh{k.k okn esa oknh ds vf/koDrk ,oa ljdkjh vf/koDrk us viuk viuk i{k j[kkA mHk; i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dks lquk ,oa vfHkys[k esa izLrqr dkxtkr dk voyksdu fd;kA ekStk edqjk ds pd ;kstuk dh lEiq’Vh o’kZ 1990 esa gh gks pqdh gSa] rFkk pdcanh inkf/kdkjh ds izfrosnu ds vuqlkj ekStk esa jS;r vius vius pdks ij n[kydkj gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa pd ;kstuk dks jn~n djus rFkk u;s fljs ls pdcanh djkus dk vkns”k nsus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA pd jksM dh pkSM+kbZ dks c<+kus ds iz”u ij ;fn xzkeh.k vkØksf”kr gS rks mUgsa lEcfU/kr l{ke inkf/kdkjh ds le{k viuk i{k izLrqr dj vko”;d vkns”k izkIr djus dh dkjokbZ djuh pkfg,A dk;kZUfor pd ;kstuk ij iz”u mBkuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrkA ekSts dh pd ;kstuk dk;kZUfor gks pqdh gSAÞ In my view, the reasons assigned by the respondent Director in the order impugned based on report furnished by the authorities under him cannot be upset by invocation of writ jurisdiction. The application is dismissed. Dismissal of this application shall not preclude the petitioner from ventilating his grievance before the appropriate authority /forum in accordance with law. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)