IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.16598 OF 2010 1. ABHIMANYU SINGH, SON OF LATE GIRDHARI SINGH 2. KAMANDAL SINGH, SON OF LATE BIHARI SINGH 3. JAI KUNWAR SINGH, SON OF BIKRAMA SINGH ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE KALYANIPUR, POLICE STATION CHAINPUR, DISTRICT KAIMUR AT BHABHUA …………………………………………………………………………PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, ROHTAS AT SASARAM 4. THE CONSOLIDATION OFFICER, CHAINPUR, KAIMUR AT BHABHUA 5. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, BHABHUA 6. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, CHAINPUR, KAIMUR AT BHABHUA 7. MADAN SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM AWTAR SINGH 8. KISHORI SINGH, SON OF LATE LAKHAN SINGH 9. VISHWANATH SINGH, SON OF LATE LAKHAN SINGH 7 TO 9 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE KALYANIPUR, POLICE STATION CHAINPUR, DISTRICT KAIMUR AT BHABHUA …………………………………………………………………………..RESPONDENTS ********* 2 08/10/2010 The petitioners have filed this writ application challenging the order dated 27.10.1997 passed by the Director, Consolidation under Section 35 of the Consolidation Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were not aware of the order passed by the revisional authority in the consolidation proceedings. It is further submitted that as per the oral partition in the year 1941, the petitioners are in possession of the share allocated to their ancestors and the respondents are similarly in possession of their share. Apparently, the respondents are challenging the oral partition. 2 This Court cannot interfere with the order impugned on amongst others, on the ground that the petitioners cannot challenge the order in which their ancestors were parties, who did not think it fit to move any higher authority against the impugned order. If at all, the petitioner can take recourse of any other legal remedy available to him, if so advised. This writ application is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )