IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.694 of 2004 1. (A) SACHITANAND MISHRA (B) SUDHAKAR MISHRA (C) OM PRAKASH MISHRA All Sons of Late Jai Kishun Mishra, All Residents of Village – Lakshamipur, P.S. Buxar (Muffasil), District – Buxar. 2. LALAN MISHRA, SON OF LATE RAMDHARI MISHRA. 3. PARSURAM MISHRA, SON OF LATE BIHARI MISHRA. All Residents of Village Lakshamipur, P.S. Buxar (Mufassil), District Buxar. 4. BABAN RAI, Son of Late Ram Nagina Rai, Resident of Village Kritpura, P.S. Buxar (Muffasil), District Buxar. ……….Petitioners/Appellants Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, Bihar Patna. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, Bhojpur-cum-Buxar at Ara. 4. THE CONSOLIDATION OFFICER, Buxar, District Buxar. ………..Respondents 1st Set. 5. BIRENDRA MISHRA, Son of Late Jagarnath Mishra, Resident of Village Lakshamipur, P.O. Kamarpur, P.S. Buxar (Muffasil), District Buxar. ……….Respondent 2nd Set. 6. BINOD KUMAR RAI, Son of Janardan Rai 7. SANJAY KUMAR RAI, Son of Vijay Bahadur Rai. 8. PANKAJ KUMAR RAI, Son of Bindhyachal Rai. Residents of Village – Kritpura, P.S. Buxar (Mufassil), District Buxar. ……….Respondents 3rd Set……..Respondents. ----------- 04/- 26/04/2011 The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 29.06.2004 passed by learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 13968 of 2003, wherein learned Single Judge has accepted the measurement report submitted by the Anchal Amin Buxar (Annexure – 4). The measurement was done in pursuance of the orders passed by this court in C.W.J.C. No. 5526 of 1997 dated 30.03.1999 (Annexure – 3), the Consolidation Officer was directed to have a fresh measurement of the chaks done in presence of both the parties and, if necessary, to alter the chaks in accordance with the observations made in the order and the measurement report. The said report has been subjected to the writ 2 petition in C.W.J.C. No. 13968/2003. The learned Single Judge has gone into the merits of the case and dismissed the petition observing that the measurement has been done scientifically and carefully and hence prepared sketch map in his report (Annexure – 4). Aggrieved by the same, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed in view of the fact that the learned Single Judge has observed that the measurement has been done in presence of both the parties. But however, the same report has been disputed by the learned counsel appearing in the appeal stating that all the lands of the appellants have been included as those belonging to the Opposite Party. We are of the opinion that the liberty can be granted to the appellant to file objection on the measurement report (Annexure – 4) dated 12.02.2000 before the Director of Consolidation, and such a liberty is also granted to the unofficial respondents to submit their reply for such objections and on filing such objection and replies, with consent of the parties, the Director, Consolidation, must decide the validity of the measurement report and with regard to the contention raised before him after affording an opportunity of hearing of both the parties. We are of the opinion that the appellant herein can be given liberty to file such objection before the concerned Director, Consolidation, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and reply therein has to 3 be filed by the Opposite Party within a period of four weeks thereafter and the entire proceeding should be proceeded expeditiously by the concerned Director, Consolidation. With the above observations and directions, this Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of. Rajeev/Praveen ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Akhilesh Chandra, J.)