IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12509 of 2001 KAPILDEO SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Mahendra Prasad Singh,Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Braj Nandan Tiwary, Advocate. ------ 3. 18.09.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for Private Respondent Nos. 5 to 8. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 30.08.2000 passed by the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna, Respondent No.2 in Revision Case Nos. 188, 189 of 1997, Annexure-7, whereunder learned Director has set aside the orders dated 24.06.1997 passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur in Appeal Case Nos. 20, 21 of 1991, Annexures- 6 and 5 and thereby affirmed the order dated 08.01.1991, Annexure-3 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Paroo, Muzaffarpur, Respondent No.4 refusing to set aside the revisional survey entry made in favour of contesting respondents. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that perusal of the order dated 30.08.2000, Annexure-7 would indicate that learned Director, Consolidation did not proceed with the adjudication of the dispute in view of notification dated 2.11.1993 issued under Section 4 A of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) cancelling the notification under section 3 of the Act. In this background it is submitted that by cancelling 2 the notification issued under Section 3 of the Act the petitioners and others became remediless as their grievance against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer could not be pursued before the superior authorities of Consolidation Directorate. In this connection it was pointed out with reference to the judgment in the case of Bihar Rajya Adhivakta Sangh and another Vs. State and other, reported in 1996 (1) BLJ 427 that even after cancellation of the notification issued under section 3 of the Act the orders passed by the authorities under the Act can always be assailed before the appellate/revisional authorities under the Act and in appreciation of such legal position Director, Consolidation should decide the dispute on merit. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties, I set aside the order dated 30.08.2000 passed by the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna, Respondent No.2 in Revision Case Nos. 188, 189 of 1997, Annexure-7 and remit back the matter to the Director, Consolidation to decide the two revision cases on merit. Parties are directed to appear before the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna on 10th November, 2008. 5. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)