Letters Patent Appeal No.702 OF 2000 ----- Against judgment and order dated 10.4.2000 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C.No.3435 of 1999. ----- KRISHNA SINGH ---------------- Appellant Versus THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION & ORS ---------------- Respondents ----- FOR THE Appellant : M/s Raghubansh Pd.Singh,Sr.Adv. with Damodar Prasad Tiwary and Braj Bhushan Mishra,Adv. For the State : M/s Lalit kishore, A.A.G.-III with Anshuman Singh,J.C. to A.A.G.-III ----- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH Barin Ghosh & Jayanandan Singh,JJ: In a proceeding initiated under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, the appellant lost ultimately before the revisional authority. The order of the revisional authority was under challenge in the writ petition, which has been rejected by the judgment and order under appeal. The reason for rejection of the writ petition was the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Gorakh Nath Dubey Vs. Hari Narain Singh, reported in AIR 1973 SC 2451, where it was held that transfer of property made in excess of power or competence of the transferor, the transfer deed becomes void and in such cases the consolidation authorities have jurisdiction to go into the question of validity or otherwise of the transfer. 2. In the present appeal, however, the appellant - 2 - is not challenging the order under appeal on the ground that the reason furnished by the learned Judge while dismissing the writ petition was erroneous. At least, no such submission has been advanced before us. Instead, it was urged that the order impugned in the writ petition passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was a non est order, inasmuch as power of revision, as granted by section 35 of the Act, vests only in the Director of Consolidation. In this connection, learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal cited the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Ram Sundar Chaudhary Vs. Ram Nath Chaudhary, reported in 2003(2) PLJR 184, wherein it had been held that the power of revision, as granted by section 35 of the Act, can only be used by the Director of Consolidation and not by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has also cited similar two judgments rendered by two learned single Judges of this Court in the case of Ramotar Yadav Vs. Ajaz Haider, reported in 2001(1) PLJR 266 and in Jhuri Bind Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2007(3) PLJR 648. 4. It has been specifically provided in sub- section (4) of section 2 of the Act that the Director of Consolidation is appointed as such by the State Government to exercise the powers and to perform the duties of Director of Consolidation under the Act or the rules made thereunder and shall include an Additional Director of Consolidation and a Joint - 3 - Director of Consolidation. At the same time, sub- section (4a) of section 2 of the Act defines Deputy Director of Consolidation as an officer not below the rank of Additional District Collector appointed as such by the State Government to exercise such powers and to perform such duties of the Director of Consolidation as may be delegated to him by the State Government and shall include an Assistant Director of Consolidation. 5. In view of these definitions and in view of vesting of revisional power by section 35 of the Act on to the Director of Consolidation, there cannot be any dispute that a revision under section 35 of the Act can only be decided by the Director of Consolidation and not by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, unless, of course, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been appointed by the State Government to exercise the power of the Director of Consolidation to decide revision, which jurisdiction has been vested in the Director of Consolidation by section 35 of the Act. 6. Sub-section (2) of section 34 of the Act in no uncertain terms authorizes the Director of Consolidation, with the sanction of the State, to delegate any of his powers or functions under the Act to any officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector. Therefore, by exercise of the power of delegation vested in the Director of Consolidation under sub- section (2) of section 34 of the Act, the Director of Consolidation may, with the sanction of the State, delegate his power of revision also to any officer not below the rank of a Deputy Collector. By virtue of the - 4 - definition given in sub-section (4a) of Section 2 of the Act, Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be an officer below the rank of Additional District Collector and the rank of Additional District Collector is not below the rank of deputy Collector. There was, therefore, no difficulty on the part of the Director of Consolidation to delegate his power of revision to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, provided, however, he had in fact made such delegation. For that purpose, we wanted to ascertain whether, in fact, any such delegation was made. We find from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by the State that on 4th September, 1997 the Director of Consolidation, with the sanction of the State, delegated the power of revision to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, who passed the revisional order, which was challenged in the writ petition. 7. In the circumstances as above, there is no scope of interference in the appeal. The appeal accordingly fails and the same is dismissed. (Barin Ghosh,J.) (Jayanandan Singh,J.) Patna High Court, 8th July, 2008 N.A.F.R./Pradeep