IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5566 of 2010 1. KRISHNA KR.PANDEY Son of Kanhaiya Pandey 2. Kamla Devi, wife of Krishna Pandey, both are residents of village Jamunidihra, Post Office Manikpur, Police Station Rajpur, District Buxar Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna 3. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bhojpur at Arrah 4. The Consolidation Officer,Anchal Rajpur, District Buxar 5. Phool Mati Devi, wife of Raj Narayan Singh residents of village Jamunidihra, Post Office Manikpur, Police Station Rajpur, District Buxar 6. Ramesh Pandey, son of Kanhaiya Pandey, residents of village Jamunidihra, Post Office Manikpur, Police Station Rajpur, District Buxar 02/ 01.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Director, Consolidation dated 11.2.2010, passed in Consolidation Revision Case No. 290 of 2008, whereunder the request of private Respondent no.5 has been allowed and the lands in question have been directed to be recorded in her name on the basis of the sale deed executed in her favour by Ramesh Pandey, Respondent no.6. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the order of the Director is contrary to the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director, as according to the Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director, Ramesh Pandey, Respondent no.6 has already sold lands more than his entire share of 88 decimals. The sale deed executed in favour of Phool Mati Devi, Respondent no.5 on the basis of which revision application has been allowed, should not have been considered as the same was for the lands which is beyond the share of Ramesh Pandey. 4. Aforesaid aspect of the matter has been considered by the Director, Consolidation and he has found at internal page 5 of the - 2 - order dated 11.2.2010 that Ramesh Pandey did not transfer land beyond his share as he was also a beneficiary in the deed of gift and the sale deed executed by Chandrika Pandey and Chandradeo Pandey, his two other uncles, who died issueless. Aforesaid aspect of the matter further found corroborated from the local inspection report dated 20.6.2007, Annexure-4, wherefrom it appears that Phool Mati Devi, Respondent no. 5 was found in possession of the lands in question in plot no. 168 on the basis of the sale deed executed in her favour by Ramesh Pandey. 5. In the circumstances, I do not see any merit in the writ application, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Arjun/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)