IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1341 of 2010 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 13308/2008) Tetar Mistri, S/O Late Raghuni Mistri R/O Vill.- Akauna, P.S.- Amas, Distt.- Gaya ----- Respondent no.4 ---- Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Director Consolidation, Bihar, Patna 2. The Joint Director, Consolidation, Magadh Division, Gaya 3. The Consolidation Officer, Amas, Gaya ----Respondents—Respondents. 4. Nankhu Prajapati @ Nanku Prajapati, S/O Late Karu Prajapati, R/O Vill.- Akauna, P.S.- Amas, Distt.- Gaya ---- Petitioner--- Respondent. ---------------------------------- 2. 17.8.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Md. Anis Akhtar, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Advocate No. 3. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by respondent no.4 of C.W.J.C. No. 13308 of 2008 (Nanhku Prajapati @ Nanku Prajapati Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), and is aggrieved by order dated 20.7.2010, whereby the order dated 16.4.2008, passed by the learned Joint Director of Consolidation, Magadh Division, Gaya, in Rev. Case No.53 of 2005, was set aside, and the writ petition has been allowed. 2 We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears that amongst raiyats of village Akauna, Chaks had been prepared and possession was handed over to the concerned parties, namely, the writ petitioner and respondent no.4 thereto. About 15 years thereafter, respondent no.4 (appellant herein) filed an application raising a grievance that Chaks had been wrongly prepared. The same was allowed by the learned Joint Director Consolidation in exercise of its revisional powers, and impugned in the writ petition. The writ petition at the instance of Nankhu Prajapati alias Nanku Prajapati has been allowed and the order of the revisional authority set aside on the ground that Chaks had been prepared way- back in 1990, and respondent no.4 challenged the same 15 years thereafter. We, therefore, do not agree with the grievances raised by respondent no.4 that he was not aware of preparation of the Chaks and handing over possession to the concerned parties for the reason that he is expected to be aware of the same. The writ petitioner got possession of the lands as per the Chaks allotted by the authority. 3 Therefore, the interest of respondent no.4 was then and there adversely affected. Secondly, learned counsel for the appellant herein (respondent no.4 to the writ petition), challenges the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that he was not noticed in the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, and was not a member of the Advisory Committee. It is a theoretically a possible position that the learned Single Judge may have committed an error of record. However, in order to challenge this finding of fact, it was incumbent on him to produce before us contemporaneous materials to show that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge militates against the same. We suppose the best material to dispel the same, inter alia, would be the order-sheet of the proceedings before the learned Consolidation Officer. No such material has been produced before us except the oral submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah,J.)