IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15988 of 2007 Shiv Nandan Paswan son of Late Jannu Paswan Resident of Village- Paharpur Bishanpur, Police station- Mahnar, Dsitrict-Vaishali -- ------- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Joint Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur 3. The Collector, Vaishali 4. The Deputy Director, Consolidation, Vaishali, Hajipur 5. Mahanth Yugal Kishore Das son of not known Resident of Village- Paharpur, Bishanpur, Police Station- Mahnar, District- Vaishali (Hajipur) -------- Respondents. ----------- 2. 16.3.2009 Heard Mr. Abdul Mannan Khan for the petitioner, and Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Advocate No.6. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.7.2007 (Annexure-1), passed by respondent no.2 in Revision Case No. 27 of 2007 ( Mahanth Yugal Kishore Das Chele Mahanth late Ram Autar Das Vrs. Shiv Nandan Paswan), whereby he has allowed the revision application preferred by respondent no.5 herein, in terms of section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and has set aside the order dated 25.11.2002 (Annexure-2), passed by respondent no.4, the appellate authority, in Case No. 40 of 2002 (Shiv Nandan Paswan Vrs. Mahanth Ram Autar Das). Learned counsel for the petitioner raises a grievance before this Court that the revision application was filed after a delay of five years, and the same has been allowed without consideration of the question of delay. Learned Government Counsel opposes the writ petition. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Learned 2 Government Counsel is right in his submission that the petitioner did not raise the question of delay before the learned revisional authority. It is, therefore, not open to him to raise the question of limitation before this Court for the first time, which is a mixed question of facts and law. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected. It further appears from a perusal of the impugned order that subject matter of the proceedings was beyond the jurisdiction of respondent no.4, and it has been made clear by the Government communication bearing letter no. 2179, dated 19.9.1987. The revision application has been allowed on the sole ground of jurisdiction, and not on the merits of the matter. The impugned order can not be faulted. The writ petition is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. )