IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8578 of 2007 Yasoda Devi, Wife of Late Matar Baitha. Resident of Village- Bhawanipur Chautahi, P.S.- Riga, District- Siramarhi. ...... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Collector, Sitamarhi. 2. The Collector, Sitamarhi. 3. The Additional Collector, Sitamarhi. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sitamarhi. 5. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sitamarhi. 6. The Circle Officer, Riga, Sitamarhi. 7. Joint Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur. .... Respondents. ----------- 02- 10.2.2009 Heard Mr. Jagdish Prasad for the petitioner, and Mr. P.K. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General No.11. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 3.11.2006 (Annexure-4), passed by the learned Joint Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur, in Case No.133 of 1995 (The State of Bihar Vs. Yashoda Devi), whereby the revision application preferred by the State of Bihar under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), has been dismissed, and the claim of the present petitioner stood rejected. The petitioner claimed to be a settlee from the State of Bihar for 50 decimals of plot no.703, appertaining to Khata no.1059. 2 2. It appears to me on a perusal of the materials on record that certain private persons (not parties here) had instituted T.S. No.1 of 1995 (Vishwanath Rai and others Vs. Yashoda Devi and others), in the court of Munsif, Sitamarhi, for declaration of right, title and interest with respect to 50 decimals of the aforesaid plot. The suit was decreed with respect to 37 decimals, and the rest of 13 decimals were not decreed, as a result of which the same remained with the State of Bihar. I am informed at the Bar that no appeal was preferred against the judgment of the civil court and the same attained finality. The State of Bihar preferred the aforesaid Revision Case No.133 of 1995, in terms of Section 35 of the Act which has been rejected, as a result of which the aforesaid 37 decimals of land continues to be the property of the said plaintiffs. This order adversely affects the petitioner leading to the present writ petition. It appears to me that the impugned order is based on the judgment of the civil court which has perhaps attained finality. No interference is called for. 3. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/ 3