IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.8806 OF 2010 1. GOPI NATH LAL S/O LATE RAM KRIT LAL R/O VILL.- BHARANDUA, P.S. CHENARI, IN THE DISTT. OF ROHTAS ……………………..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR (THROUGH THE DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION) BIHAR AT PATNA OFFICE SITUATED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK BUILDING, BUDHA MARG, PATNA 2. THE CONSOLIDATION OFFICER, CHENARI, DISTT.- ROHTAS 3. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, CHENARI, DISTT.- ROHTAS 4. VISHWANATH AHIR S/O LATE JAI RAM AHIR R/O VILL.- LANGI ANCHAL, AND POLICE STATION CHENARI, DISTT.- ROHTAS …………………………………………………………………………..RESPONDENTS ******* 2 23/06/2010 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order as contained in Annexure-5 passed in a rent fixation case on the basis of an application filed by the respondent no. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he owned and possessed 1 acre 70 decimals of land of khata no. 67 plot no. 234 within Chenari Anchal which was recorded as Gair Mazarua Malik and settled by Shri Kailash Singh, the then landlord at the time of the revisional survey in favour of the father of the petitioner. The respondent no. 4 without filing an application before the Consolidation Officer, directly approached the Director, Consolidation and claimed that a chak would be recorded in his name with respect to the lands in question. The Director, Consolidation by order dated 23.06.2000 allowed the application of respondent no. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by 2 order dated 23.06.2000 filed CWJC No. 365 of 2010. This Court held that since the petitioner was not impleaded as a party in the consolidation revision, he is not bound by the order dated 23.06.2000 as contained in Annexure 1 and gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the Director, Consolidation and seek relief of the order dated 23.06.2000. The petitioner thereafter filed a review application on 10.02.2010. The matter could not be heard for one or the other reason and in the mean time, the Circle Officer has passed an order fixing the rent of the said lands in favour of respondent no. 4. It is alleged that the order is antedated, which is neither here nor there. In the circumstances stated aforesaid, I direct the Consolidation Officer to issue notice to respondent no. 4, Vishwanath Ahair, son of Late Jai Ram Ahir, resident of village Langi Anchal, Police Station Chenari, District Rohtas in whose favour the earlier order dated 23.06.2000 was purportedly passed by the Director, Consolidation. As stated in the order of this Court, the Director, Consolidation is bound to consider the review application of the petitioner on the ground (a) that the respondent no. 4 could not have directly approached 3 the Director, Consolidation in the matter, (b) that the order is said to be ex-parte without notice to the petitioner and (c) that this Court had given liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of the Director, Consolidation. In the mean time, the fixation of rent by the Circle Officer as contained in Annexure-5 should not be taken to be an order passed on the merits of the case in favour of respondent no. 4. The fixation of the rent would ultimately depend upon the order passed by the Director, Consolidation in the review application. I also direct that the Director, Consolidation should immediately issue notice to respondent no. 4 in the writ application described above and peruse the documents, call for the records, if necessary, and hear the parties with respect to the merits of the case. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)