IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 9367 of 2011 Ram Swarath Singh, son of Ram Nandan Singh, resident of village – Sutihara (Bara) P S – Parihar, P O – Sutihara, District – Sitamarhi - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 The Joint Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur 3 Dy Director of Consolidation, Sitamarhi, 4 Consolidation Officer, Parihar, District – Sitamarhi 5 Majhi Singh, son of Khublal Singh, resident of village – Sutihara Bara, P S – Parihar, P O – Sutihara, Dist – Sitamarhi - Respondents ----------- 2 23.06.2011 Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere in this matter. The petitioner has challenged the order as passed by the DDC and affirmed by the Joint Director under the provisions of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1956 (hereinafter refereed to as the Consolidation Act). Petitioner submits that the Consolidation Officer having passed the order over 16 years back, an appeal was preferred in terms of Section 10 (6) of the Consolidation Act which itself was not maintainable. A perusal of the appellate order (Annexure-2) would show that the original proceedings before the Consolidation Officer was a paper proceeding. The appellate Court has examined the original records and found that in fact no notice was issued to the parties nor there was any report on record on basis of which partition was ordered. Even the schedule, on basis of which lands were distributed, was not signed by both the parties. He, therefore, set aside the order which has not been interfered by the Joint Director. In my view, an order which has been passed in violation of 2 principles of natural justice is an order void ab initio and the period of limitation would not come into play in respect of such an order. This application is dismissed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)