IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8103 of 2011 BHANUMATI DEVI w/o Subhash Singh resident of village- Akhalashpur, P.S.Bhabua,District- Kaimur (Bhabua). Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR . 2. The Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Director, Consolidation, Kaimur at Bhabua. 4. The Consolidation Officer, Kaimur at Bhabua. 5. Rejendra Prasad Singh s/o Bibhuti Singh, resident of village- Akhalaspur, P.S. Bhabua, District- Kaimur ( Bhabua). ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s Sandeep Kumar and Rajbansh Dubey For the respondents : Mr. Tribhuwan Narayan and Mr. Ashutosh Singh, A.C. to G.P.8 3 22.6.2011 The petitioner, by this writ application, challenges the order, as passed by the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna in Consolidation Revision Case no. 238 of 2010, dated 14.2.2011. The order was obtained by one Rajendra Prasad Singh, who had moved the Director, Consolidation in revision under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Actm 1956. The said Rajendra Prasad Singh is respondent no.5 to this writ application and has appeared and filed a counter affidavit. Heard the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at this stage itself. Apart from factual issue, which I do not propose to go into, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Director, Consolidation ought not to have exercised the revisional jurisdiction under Section 35 of the Consolidation Act in relation to a matter, which was settled as far back as in 1983 by creation of Chak and parties being put in possession thereof. In 2 substance the contention is that respondent no.5, who is an agene had got along with other co-sharers land in newly created Chak no. 32 and the petitioner was allotted land in Chak no. 33 simultaneously. This was in 1983. The revision application was filed in 2010 with no other proceeding under the consolidation statute being taken up by respondent no.5. In other words, it is submitted that though Section 35 of the Act does not provide limitation of period within which the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked. It must be invoked as soon as possible and within a reasonable period and not after twenty seven years as in the present case. Learned counsel for the respondent no.5 submits that as between the parties there is a partition suit pending for division of the same very property apart from others. In my view that is not relevant for the present . What ever may be the decision of the Civil Court would ultimately prevail but till such time such decision is rendered, the decision of the Consolidation authority has to prevail. The decision of allotment of Chak became final in 1983. There was no appeal or challenge. Now after twenty seven years, the challenge was made and entertained by the Director, Consolidation. The question is whether the Director, Consolidation can entertain such belated revision application. In my view, similar situation has arisen in the case of Mansaram –v- S.P.Pathak & ors. Since reported in AIR 1983 SC 1239. That case related to right of landlord to seek eviction of a tenant, who had unauthorizedly entered and failed 3 to vacate the premises.The House Allotment Officer was then moved by the landlord after twenty two years. There was no period of limitation yet the Apex Court held that the House Allotment Officer had to exercise his jurisdiction within a reasonable time. The Apex Court held thus: “ But as stated earlier, where power is conferred to effectuate a purpose, it has to be exercised in a reasonable manner and the reasonable exercise of power inheres its exercise within a reasonable time. This is too well established to need buttressing by a precedent. However, one is readily available in State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha, (1970) 1 SCR 353( AIR 1969 SC 1297). In that case the Commissioner exercised suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 221 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code which did not prescribe any period of limitation for exercise of revisional jurisdication. The Commissioner exercised revisional jurisdiction one year after the Collector made the order which was sought to be revised. The High Court set aside the order of the Commissioner. In the appeal by State of Gujarat, this Court declined to interfere holding inter alia that the revisional power in the absence of prescribed period of limitation must be exercised within a reasonable time and period of one year was held to be too late.” In view of the aforesaid, I am inclined to take a view that if a matter was settled as far back as 28 years and not challenged, could not have been challenged before the revisional Court i.e. the Director, Consolidation after such a long delay and the Director, Consolidation could not have assumed jurisdiction in the matter after such a long inordinate delay. Thus the order of Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna, in Consolidation Revision Case no. 238 of 2010, dated 14.1.2011 cannot be sustained and is quashed accordingly. 4 However, before closing ,I may only observe that the rights of the parties would ultimately be determined by the Civil Court where partition disputes are pending. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)