IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7620 of 2010 1. HRIDAYA NAND SINGH @ RAMCHANDRA SINGH, S/O LATE SHYAM NARAYAN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE- SIKARIA,P.S.- KARAKAT, DISTRICT- ROHTAS. 2. SOMARU SINGH, S/O LATE JAI KISHUN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE- SIKARIA,P.S.- KARAKAT, DISTRICT- ROHTAS. 3. KAPIL SINGH S/O DURGA MAHTO, R/O VILLAGE- SIKARIA,P.S.- KARAKAT, DISTRICT- ROHTAS. 4. BABAN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE- SIKARIA,P.S.- KARAKAT, DISTRICT- ROHTAS. 5. KAMESHWAR MAHTO, S/O RAMBILAS MAHTO, R/O VILLAGE- SIKARIA,P.S.- KARAKAT, DISTRICT- ROHTAS. 6. HIRA LAL MAHTO, S/O PARMESHWAR MAHTO, R/O VILLAGE- SIKARIA,P.S.- KARAKAT, DISTRICT- ROHTAS - Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COLLECTOR, ROHTAS, P.O. & P.S.-SASARAM,DISTRICT-ROHTAS. 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS,BIKRAMGANJ AT & P.S.- BIKRAMGANJ, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. 4. THE ANCHALADHIKARI,KARAKAT, P.O. & P.S.-KARAKAT,DISTRICT-ROHTAS. 5. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION ( MUKHALAY) BIHAR, PATNA. 6. THE CONSOLIDATION OFFICER,KARAKAT AT P.O. & P.S.-KARAKAT,DISTRICT-ROHTAS. 7. RAMCHANDRA SINGH, S/O LATE RAMBILAS SINGH @ MAHTON, R/O VILLAGE- POKHRAHA,P.S.-NASRIGANJ, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. 8. RAM BACHAN SINGH, S/O LATE RAMBILAS SINGH @ MAHTON, R/O VILLAGE- POKHRAHA,P.S.-NASRIGANJ, DISTRICT-ROHTAS - Respondents. ----------- 4 21.6.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners had earlier moved this court challenging the order, dated 27.5.2001 passed in Mutation Revision Case No. 16 of 2000. This court by order, dated 16.9.2008 passed in CWJC No. 10785 of 2001 has passed the following order : “Having heard counsel for the parties I am of the view that until the order dated 7.5.1984, Annexure-E to the counter affidavit on the basis of which revisional order dated 27.05.2001, Annexure-7 has been passed is not set aside mutation of the lands in question has to be made in the light of the orders dated 7.5.1984, Annexure-E to the counter affidavit. Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the order 2 dated 7.5.1984 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Karakat in Case No. 62/274 of 1977-78, Annexure-E to the counter affidavit before the competent court/authority in accordance with law and it is observed that in the event petitioners succeed in getting the order dated 7.5.1984 set aside then the mutation authorities will consider the said fact and revise their order accordingly.” The petitioners thereafter challenged the revisional order before the Joint Director Consolidation, Bihar, Patna. The Director after considering all aspects of the matter found that it would be proper to remand the matter back to the Consolidation Officer, Karakat, Rohtas to make a local inspection of the land under section 10(7) of the Consolidation Act after giving notice to the petitioners and hearing them on the issue. I, thus, see no illegality in the order, dated 20.7.2009 (Annexure 2). The Consolidation Officer will notice the petitioners and after that fix a date and make local inspection in their presence. The Circle Officer will then take into account the documents produced by the petitioners to substantiate their claim that their names finds place in the earlier revisional survey, and also consider the report of local inspection of the lands made, and pass an appropriate orders in this matter. The entire procedure should be completed within six months. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)