IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2851 of 2010 1. GANAURI PASWAN 2. GOKHUL PASWAN. 3. NARAYAN PASWAN. 4. DEVKI PASWAN, ALL PETITIONER NO.1 TO 4 ARE SONS OF LATE BASUDEO PASWAN @ BASUDEO SINGH GAHLAUT. 5. ARJUN PASWAN. 6. SURESH PASWAN, PETITIOENR NO.5 AND 6 ARE SONS OF LATE SAJIVAN PASWAN, AND ALL PETITIONER NO.1 TO 6 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KARAMDIH, P.S. AAMAS, P.O. CHANDI, ASTHAN DISTRICT GAYA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION, GAYA. 3. THE CONSOLIDATION OFFICER, AAMAS, DISTRICT GAYA. 4. SMT. BHUNESHWARI DEVI WIFE OF SRI RAJESHWAR MISTRI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KARAMDIH, P.S. AAMAS, P.O. CHANDI ASTHAN, DISTRICT GAYA AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF MOHALLA TILHA DHARAMSHALA, BAHUAR CHAURA, P.S. CIVIL LINES, DISTRICT GAYA. ----------- 02. 18.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 25.6.2009, Annexure-4 passed by the Joint Director, Consolidation, Gaya, in Revision Case No.173 of 2008, Annexure-4, whereunder he has allowed the revision application filed by private respondent no.4 directing the Consolidation Officer to record the lands in question in favour of private respondent no.4. Counsel for the petitioners states that the findings recorded under the impugned order is vitiated as the same is contrary to the findings recorded in the order dated 22.1.2006, Annexure-2, which is between the same parties and for the same land. Such submission of the counsel for the petitioners was considered under the impugned order at internal page-5 and rejected observing that reliance placed over the order contained in Annexure-2 is misplaced, as the said order was with respect to plot no.187, whereas - 2 - the plot in dispute in the present case is plot no.234. In view of the aforesaid finding recorded in the impugned order, I am not inclined to rely over Annexure-2 as there is not statement in the petition that such finding is an error of record. Counsel for the petitioners thereafter submitted that the sale deed on the basis of which private respondent no.4 has raised her claim was executed in favour of her husband but the revision application was filed by the wife, as such, revision could not have been maintained. I regret not to accept such submission, aforesaid objection if at all could have been taken by the husband of private respondent no.4 and not by the petitioners. When the aforesaid observation was made by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners being in possession of the lands in question, they have every right to object the direction of the revisional authority to record the lands in question in favour of private respondent no.4. From the order of the court below it does not appear that question of possession over the lands in question was ever raised before the revisional authority, in the circumstances, I am not inclined to allow the petitioners to raise the question of possession over the lands in question for the first time in this Court and dismiss the writ application. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)