IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17181 of 2010 1. Lakshman Singh 2. Umesh Singh. Both son of Late Govind Singh R/O Vill.- Onuwar Korsen, P.S.- Rajpur, Distt.- Buxar. -Petitioners. VERSUS 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Director Consolidation, Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna 3. Deputy Singh S/O Late Kailash Singh R/O Vill.- Onuwar Korsen, P.S.- Rajpur, Distt.- Buxar 4. Ram Jag Singh S/O Late Kailash Singh R/O Vill.- Onuwar Korsen, P.S.- Rajpur, Distt.- Buxar 5. Sidh Nath Singh S/O Late Kailash Singh R/O Vill.- Onuwar Korsen, P.S.- Rajpur, Distt.- Buxar 6. Bishwa Nath Singh S/O Late Kailash Singh R/O Vill.- Onuwar Korsen, P.S.- Rajpur, Distt.- Buxar 7. Shiv Pratap Singh S/O Late Kailash Singh R/O Vill.- Onuwar Korsen, P.S.- Rajpur, Distt.- Buxar 8. Kashi Nath Singh S/O Late Hari Narayan Singh R/O Vill.- Onuwar Korsen, P.S.- Rajpur, Distt.- Buxar. –Respondents. ----------- 03 27.06.2011 By this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 09.04.2011 passed in Consolidation Revision Case No.78 of 2009 passed by the Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna annexed as a part of the Annexure-3 in this writ petition. By this order, under Section-35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, the Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision application as filed by private-respondent nos.3 to 8 and directed that they should be shown as raiyat in respect of the disputed land. Petitioners state that in fact private-respondents have wrongly claimed the land on basis of a wrong entry in the revision survey which was published in the year 1979. They submit that realizing the wrong survey entry they had filed a title suit, being Title Suit No.40 of 2009, before the Munsif-I, Buxar, which is pending as - 2 - against the private-respondents, for correction of the revision survey entry. It is submitted that upon coming to know of the said suit instead of contesting the matter there the present revision application was filed on or about 07.04.2009 without making petitioners as party and an order behind the back of the petitioner was obtained. This Court issued notices to respondent nos.3 to 8 who have appeared through Vakalatnama. No one is present in the Court to represent the private-respondents. Heard the parties. In view of the facts stated above, in my view, it is proper that the Director Consolidation, Bihar, Patna should hear the Consolidation Revision Case No.78 of 2009 as filed by the private- respondents afresh after issuing notices to the petitioners. This is so because petitioners are also claiming possession of the same piece of land and also claim wrong revisional survey entry. The Director Consolidation would be required to enquire into and pass appropriate orders in view of the conflicting claims as between the parties. Petitioners had not been made party to those proceedings. I, therefore, direct that the Director Consolidation would after issuance of notices to the petitioners and adding petitioners as party-respondents in the said proceedings hear all the parties and decide the matter afresh. Till such time a decision is taken afresh, the impugned order dated 09.04.2010 shall remain in abeyance. The petitioners would be expected to file an application for addition of parties and re-hearing the matter before the Director Consolidation - 3 - within one month from today. The Director Consolidation after issuance of notice to the parties would fix date and hear after proper enquiry and pass orders. In case, upon findings arrived by him, the findings being contrary to what is already recorded in the impugned order dated 09.04.2010 the earlier order would stand superceded. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)