IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10462 of 2001 ISUF KHAN & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 12/ 16.9.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the private Respondent nos. 5,7,8 and 9. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 20.9.1997, passed in Appeal No. 209/ 92-93 by the Assistant Director, Consolidation, Rohtas at Sasaram, as contained in Annexure-2 to this writ application, whereunder learned Assistant Director, Rohtas has set aside the order dated 23.6.1992, passed by the Consolidation Officer, Chainpur, Bhabua in Case No. 342 of 1990-91, as contained in Annexure-1 to this writ application. They are further aggrieved by the order dated 18.8.2000, passed by the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna in Revision Case No. 393 of 1997, as contained in Annexure-3 to this writ application whereunder Annexure- 1 has been affirmed. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the lands in question were recorded in the name of the petitioners under order dated 23.6.1992, Annexure-1 after holding local inspection in terms of the provisions contained in Sub-section (7) of Section 10 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation 2 Act and without holding any fresh inspection of the lands in question, the Assistant Director, Consolidation, Rohtas proceeded to set aside the order dated 23.6.1992, Annexure-1. It is further submitted that had the superior authorities, namely, the Assistant Director, Consolidation, Rohtas and Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna also inspected the lands in question or got the lands inspected by any other agency after notice to the petitioners, then they would also have been satisfied about the possession of the petitioners over the lands in question, but ignoring the actual possession of the petitioners over the lands in question, orders dated 23.6.1992 and 18.8.2000, Annexures-2 and 3 have been passed. 4. Aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioners, has been disputed by the learned coaunsel for the private Respondents, who states that the private Respondents and their ancestors are recorded in the revenue record as those who are earning drawing sustenance from the lands in question. Such entries have been made right from the Cadestral Survey operation. Even during the Revisional Survey, private Respondents were found in possession of the lands in question and entries to that effect were recorded in revisional survey khatiyan which the petitioners never questioned before the superior authorities. 3 5. Having heard counsel for the parties, I direct the petitioners and private Respondents to appear before the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna on 20.10.2008, whereafter the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna shall fix a date for holding local inspection of the lands in question either himself or through any of his subordinate posted at the headquarter and the lands in question shall be inspected in presence of the parties and if the petitioners are found in possession of the lands in question, then the order dated 18.8.2000, as contained in Annexure-3 shall be modified to that extent. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. Arjun/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)