IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.70 of 2007 Deo Sunder Pater, Son of Late Rasik Lal Pater, resident of village – Dwasay, P.S. Dandkhora, District – Katihar. … Plaintiff/petitioner. Versus 1. Parmanand Pater, Son of Late Mohan Lal Pater 2. Ramanand Pater, Son of Late Mohan Lal Pater 3. Smt. Bhutaki Devi, Daughter of Late Mohan Lal Pater, Wife of Mukund Sah. 1 to 3 are residents of village – Dwasay, P.O. Dwasay, Via – Durgaganj, P.S. Dandkhora, District – Katihar. 4. Binod Pater (deleted) 5. Ramanand Pater, Son of Late Krishna Mohan Pater, resident of village – Amor, P.S. Amor, District – Purnea. 6. Urmila Devi, Wife of Late Gotan Sah, Daughter of Krishna Mohan Pater, resident of Village – Ganeshpuri, P.S. Kajha, District – P:urnea. ..Defendants/Opp. Parties 1st Set. 7. Satyadeo Pater, Son of Late Pasogi Pater 8. Laxmi Pater, Son of Late Pasogi Pater 9. Dilip Pater, Son of Late Narayan Pater 10. Rajoo Pater, Son of Late Narayan Pater 11. Sikandar Pater, Son of Late Narayan Pater 12. Most. Manti Devi, Wife of late Narayan Pater, All residents of village – Dwasay, P.S. Dwasay, P.S. – Dandkhora, District – Katihar. 13. Upendra Mistry, Son of Late Godai Mistry 14. Nathoo Mistry, Son of Late Moti Mistry 15. Koshava Mistry, Son of Late Moti Mistry All residents of village – Dwasay, P.O. Dwasay, P.S. – Dandkhora, District – Katihar. …Defendants 2nd party/Opp. Parties 2nd set. For the petitioner : - Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, Advocate : - Mr. S.P. Barnwal, Advocate For the O.Ps. : - None. ----------- 07/ 23.06.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of opposite parties in spite of notices served to them. 2. This civil revision has been filed by plaintiff-petitioner challenging order dated 11.10.2006 by which the learned Munsif, Katihar allowed the petition filed by defendant nos. 13 and 14 (who are opposite party nos. 14 and 15) under Section 4 (1) (b) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 - 2 - (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and rejected the plaint of Title Suit No. 127 of 1998. 3. The aforesaid title suit was filed by plaintiff-petitioner for declaration of title and for recovery of possession after removal of encroachment by the defendants from the suit land. The said suit continued and subsequently after closure of the evidence of the plaintiff the defendants filed a petition on 4.1.2006 claiming that notification under Section 3 of the Act had been issued in the year 1975 and since then the consolidation proceeding started and no notification under Section 26(A) of the Act has been so far issued. In support of their claim the defendants filed an information slip from the consolidation authorities which supported the said fact. The aforesaid claim could not be denied by the plaintiff by any valid material. In the said circumstances, the learned court below had no option but to pass the impugned order. 4. Accordingly, this court does not find any jurisdictional error or any illegality in the impugned order of learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. DKS/ (S.N. Hussain, J.)