IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.423 of 2007 Baikunth Tiwary, son of late Haripal Tiwary, resident of village Bairi, Police Station Itarhi, District- Bhojpur … Respondent No.6/Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Joint Director of Consolidation (M), Bihar, Patna 3. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bhojpur at Arrah 4. The Consolidation Officer, Itarhi, District, Bhojpur .. Respondents-Respondents 1st Set 5. Bhirgunath Tiwary 6. Hareram Tiwary Both sons of late Bhujhawan Tiwary residents of village Bairi Police Station, Itarhi, District-Bhojpur ----------- For the appellant :- Mr. K. N. Choubey, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ishwari Singh, Advocate For the State :-Anil Kumar Upadhaya , S.C.-20 Anurag Saurav, A.C.to S.C.-20 9 30.06.2011 When the matter has been taken-up for final hearing, the respondent nos.5 and 6 remained absent. The record shows that the vakalatnama on their behalf has already been filed. As such the matter is taken up for hearing on merits. The present appeal arises out order dated 19.02.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No.6791 of 1998. The main contention urged before the learned Single Judge was with regard to the orders passed by the authorities in respect of the appellant on the ground that objection 2 ought to have been filed under section 10-A of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that no objection has been filed as contemplated under Section 10-A of the act and on that ground the learned Single Judge set aside the order passed by the authorities and allowed the writ petition. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.6 in the writ petition has contended that observation of the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition cannot be sustained for the reasons that any substitution can be made under the provisions of Act 27 of 1975. In this case, the writ petitioners-respondent nos.5 and 6 filed objection within 45 days of the date of publication of the register under sub-section 1 of section 10 of the Act. In absence of such filing of objection within 45 days the order cannot be found fault with for any in action of the respondent nos.5 and 6 i.e. the writ petitioners. We had an occasion to go through the 3 provisions of Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 which provides that “any person may, within 45 days of the date of publication of the register under sub-section (1) file before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, objection in respect thereof, disputing the correctness and nature of entries in the records or in the statement of principles”. Section 10-A which was substituted and inserted by the Act 27 of 1975 provides that “no question in respect of any entry made in the map or registers prepared under Section 9 or the statement of principles prepared under section 9A relating to the Consolidation area, which might or ought to have been raised under section 10 but has not been raised, shall not be raised or heard at any subsequent stage of the Consolidation proceeding”. In this case as the orders have been passed by the authorities in between 1984-1987, we are of the opinion that in absence of any objections filed under sub-section (2) of section 10 of the Act, it cannot be said that the writ petitioner cannot question the orders passed by the consolidation authorities. The 4 learned Single Judge ought not have to allow the writ petition by quashing the orders passed by the authorities by applying the provisions of Section 10(A) of the Act in absence of non- compliance of Section 10(2) of the Act. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order of learned Single Judge has to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Ashwini (T.Meena Kumari,J.) (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)