IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1528 of 2010 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 7390/2009) Suresh Chandra Agarwal son Late Sheo Govind Prasad Agarwal, Resident of Village-Khiri, P.O. + P.S. –Bhagwanpur, Suresh District – Kaimur. …… Petitioner-Appellant. Versus 1.The State Of Bihar. 2.The Director Consolidation, Bihar,Patna. 3.The Deputy Director, Consolidation, Rohtas at Sasaram. 4.The Consolidation Officer, Bhagwanpur, District- Kaimur. 5. Bina Agarwal W/O Late Surendra Nath Agarwal. 6. Shelpa Agarwal D/O Late Surendra Nath Agarwal. 7. Lovely Agarwal D/O Late Surndra Nath Agarwal. 8.Sweta Agarwal W/O Late Surendra Nath Agarwal. 9.Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, S/O Late Jitendra Kumar Agarwal. 10. Sonal Raj Garg S/O Late Jitendra Kumar Agarwal. 11. Saurabh Agarwal S/O Late Jitendra Kumar Agarwal. 12. Rabindra Kumar Agarwal S/O Late Jagarnath Agarwal. Respondents no.5 to 12 are residents of Ward No.17 (New) Bhabhua, P.S.-Bhabhua, District- Kaimur. …..Respondents-Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Kamal Nayan Choubey, Senior Advocate. For the State : Mr.Partha Sarthy, S.C.10. Mr.Mrigendra Kumar, A.C. to S.C.10. For the Respts.No.9 to 12: Mr.Abbas Haider. Advocate. For the Respts.No.10 to 11: Mr.Pushkar Narain Shahi,Sr. Advocate. With M/s Ritesh Kumar No.1 andPatanjali Rishi. ---------------------------------- 4 16.12.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the private respondents. The writ petition preferred by the appellant against the revisional order of the Director Consolidation, Bihar, was dismissed under appeal. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that in absence of any registered documents showing exchange of 22 decimals of land with 28 decimals of land of the respondent, the Consolidation authorities or the writ court should not have maintained the entries 2 made in the land register in the year 1975 on the basis of such exchange. There is no dispute that there is a registered partition in the year 1967 between the parties who belong to one family and thereafter in the year 1975, the parties were found to be in possession over the concerned land and, accordingly, entries were recorded in the register of land mentioning that the fact of possession was admitted by the parties. The writ court has found that the appellant/ writ petitioner has not denied that he is in possession of 28 decimals of land of C.S. Plot No.46 ( R.S. Plot No.170) which Jagarnath Prasad Agarwal exchanged with the petitioner to enable Sri Govind Prasad Agrawal to have larger chunk of land in C.S.Plot No.46. Writ court further found that the order dated 15.10.1956 by the Consolidation Officer entering the name of Jagarnath Prasad Agarwal or his heirs on the basis of admitted possession was in accordance with law and does not warrant interference. In the facts of the case we find no material to take a different view. On behalf of the appellant another technical issue was raised before the writ Court with a view to challenge the jurisdiction of the concerned officer who passed the revisional order as Director Consolidation, Bihar. The writ Court has noticed that same officer was posted as Director Consolidation from before and although he was posted as Secretary of the Department also, he continued to work as Director Consolidation and, thus, position was legally fortified by the Government which issued an order again showing him as Director Consolidation Bihar with retrospective effect so that there was no break in his functioning as Director Consolidation on account of his being 3 posted as Secretary/ Principal Secretary of the Department. Writ Court, in our view, has rightly held that the Judgments by the said officer cannot be declared to be without jurisdiction because even if there was any defect in the notification transferring the officer to the post of Secretary/Principal Secretary without showing him under dual charge of the Director Consolidation also, the validity of the order passed by him are saved by de facto doctrine. We find no merit in this appeal and it , accordingly, dismissed. It goes without saying that if law permits the appellant to approach the civil court seeking remedy in the matter, he may do so in accordance with law. AnilKrSinha (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) (Shivaji Pandey,J.)