IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1030 of 2007 RAM PRAVESH CHOUDHARY & ORS Versus RAM SAGAR CHOUDHARY & ORS ----------- For the appellants : M/sV.Nath, Satish Kumar Md. Waliur Rahman, Advocates For the respondents : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dvivedi, Senior Advocate M/s R.S.Dvivedi, Shailendra Kumar Dvivedi, Ranjan Kumar Dvivedi, Advocates. ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------ Dated, the 15th September, 2008 Heard. 2. Counsel for the appellants does not dispute that by the order dated 19th October, 1975, the Consolidation Officer had passed an order in favour of predecessor in title of respondents no.1 to 3 by ordering amendment in the record of rights and further direction for amendment in the certificate issued under Section 16 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (for short, „Act, 1956‟). He also does not dispute that the said order held the field for more than nine years, and it was only in the year 1984 that the present appellants applied to the Consolidation Officer for setting aside the order dated 19th October, 1975. - 2 - 3. We wanted to know from the counsel for the appellants under which provision such an application was made. Initially, he referred to Section 12 A of Act, 1956. Section 12A provides for filing of objections to the draft scheme framed under Section 12. We, accordingly, asked the counsel for the appellants, how could Section 12A be invoked for setting aside the order dated 19th October, 1975. He fairly submitted that in fact, Section 12A could not have been invoked. He, however, submitted that Section 35 of the Act, 1956 empowered the authority to revise the order and the power in passing the order dated 19th October, 1975 could be traced to Section 35 of the Act. 4. Section 35 of the Act, 1956 reads thus: “35. Revision and reference.- The Director of Consolidation may of his own motion or on the application of any party or on reference being made by any subordinate authority, call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by such authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceeding; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, and may after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit.” 5. A close look at the said provision would show that it provides for power of revision to the Director of Consolidation either suo motu or on the application of an aggrieved party. Such power is, surely, not vested in the Consolidation Officer to whom the application was made for setting aside the order dated 19th October, 1975. When we observed this the counsel for the appellant would - 3 - submit that even if power under Section 35 could not have been exercised by the Consolidation Officer, since from the order of Consolidation Officer, the matter ultimately travelled to the Director of Consolidation and the order of Consolidation Officer has been affirmed, the order cannot be said to suffer from any legal infirmity. 6. We are afraid, a settled order like 19th October, 1975 passed by the Consolidation Officer could not have been unsettled by Consolidation Officer in the manner it has been done, particularly when no provision has been shown under which he could have passed such order. 7. The order passed by the Consolidation officer on 20th January, 1984 setting aside the order dated 19th October, 1975 suffered from serious error of jurisdiction and so also the orders dated 22nd October, 1984 and 05th May, 2000 whereby the order dated 20th January, 1984 has been affirmed. 8. Seen thus, the order of the Single Judge does not call for any interference. 9. L.P.A. is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil