IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18452 of 2009 1. KASHI NATH RAM S/O LATE DEO NARAYAN RAM R/O VILL- DHANSOIE, P.S- DAHNSOI, DISTT- BUXAR 2. MAHENDRA RAM S/O LATE DEO NARAYAN RAM R/O VILL-BHANSOIE, P.S- DHANSOI, DISTT- BUXAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE CONSOLIDATION OFFICER, RAJPUR, DISTT- BUXAR 4. SKANDAR ALI S/O LATE CHURUL CHAUDHARY R/O VILL- JALALPUR DHANSOI , ANCHAL+P.O- RAJPUR DISTT- BUXAR ----------- 4. 12.01.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 7.8.2009 passed by the Director, Consolidation in Consolidation Revision Case No. 22 of 2009, Annexure-5 as the said order was passed without any notice to them after fixing the case for ex parte hearing under orders dated 30.6.2009. When such submission was made before this Court on 4.1.2010 this Court directed the counsel for the petitioners to file complete order-sheet of the Consolidation Revision Case No. 22 of 2009. In compliance of the orders of this Court dated 4.1.2010 petitioners have filed supplementary affidavit placing on record the complete order-sheet of Consolidation Revision Case No. 22 of 2009 which is contained in Annexure-6 to the supplementary affidavit. Perusal of Annexure-6 indicates that aforesaid Consolidation Revision Case No. 22 of 2009 was heard on the point of limitation and admission on 13.2.2009 and on the said date limitation was condoned and thereafter the revision was admitted with direction to Sikandar Ali to file requisites by 6.3.2009. It does not appear from the order-sheet that the requisites were filed on or before 6.3.2009. It also does not appear from the said order-sheet that notices were actually issued to Kashi Nath Ram and - 2 - another, the writ petitioners. It is also not evident from the said order-sheet that the notices were served on the two petitioners. In view of the contents of the order-sheet, it is submitted that the matter was fixed for ex parte hearing on 30.6.2009 without there being any issue and service of notice on the petitioners. Aforesaid submission is not being refuted by the counsel for the State. 3. In the circumstances, I am of the view that petitioners should seek review of the order dated 7.8.2009, Annexure-5 and the learned Director should verify from the records of Consolidation Revision Case No. 22 of 2009 as to whether any notice was issued to the petitioners which was also served on them and if he is satisfied that notice was not served on the petitioners then he should recall the order dated 7.8.2009 and thereafter issue notice to Sikandar Ali and hear the matter afresh and pass orders in accordance with law. 4. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)