Manoj Kumar SahversusThe State of Bihar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7936 of 2026
     ======================================================
1.   Manoj Kumar Sah, Son of Saudaghar Sah, Resident of Village- Tikaili, P.S.
     Dandkhora, District- Katihar.
2.   Kapildeo Sah, Son of Saudaghar Sah, through its Power of Attorney Holder
     Manoj Kumar Sah (Petitioner No. 1), Resident of Village- Tikaili, P.S.
     Dandkhora, District- Katihar.


                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                         Versus
1.   The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and
     Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2.   The Director Consolidation, Bihar, Patna.
3.   The Deputy Director Consolidation, Katihar.
4.   The Consolidation Officer, Katihar.
5.   Dhuna Kisku, S/o Late Supal Manjhi, Resident of Village- Medhali, P.S.
     Dandkhora, District- Katihar.
6.   Mani Lal Kisku, S/o Late Chatur @ Mathur Manjhi, Resident of Village-
     Medhali, P.S. Dandkhora, District- Katihar.
7.   Tallu Kisku @ Rajesh Kisku, S/o Late Chatur @ Mathur Manjhi, Resident
     of Village- Medhali, P.S. Dandkhora, District- Katihar.
8.   Tirtha Nand Jha, S/o Daya Nand Jha, Resident of Village- Dumariya, P.S.
     Dandkhora, District- Katihar.
9.   Deo Narayan Sah, S/o Bipin Sah, Resident of Village- Tikaili, P.S.-
     Dandkhora, District- Katihar.


                                                                   ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s    :       Mr. Bhola Prasad, Adv.
     For the Respondent/s    :       Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, GA-2
                                     Mr. Venkatesh Kirti, JC to GA-2
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
     ORAL JUDGMENT
Patna High Court CWJC No.7936 of 2026 dt.30-06-2026
                                           2/5




       Date : 30-06-2026

                         Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

                         2. The sole grievance of the petitioners is that they

         have been left remediless by the conduct of the Director,

         Consolidation, Bihar, Patna (respondent No. 2), who has

         refused to accept the revision application assailing the order

         dated     20.06.1990        passed      by   the   Deputy    Director,

         Consolidation, Katihar in Consolidation Appeal Case No.

         16/1990-91, whereby the order dated 10.06.1988 passed by the

         Consolidation Officer, Katihar in Consolidation Case No.

         289/1988-89 is reversed.

                         3. It has further been submitted that the petitioners

         were never heard in the aforesaid consolidation case before

         passing the order either by the Consolidation Officer, Katihar

         or by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Katihar.

                         4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits

         that it is apposite to mention here that the petitioners were not

         party in both the Courts below either before the Consolidation

         Officer in Case No. 289/1988-89 nor their land was under

         dispute before original Court U/s. 10 (4) of the Act in Case No.

         289/1988-89 and in Appellate Jurisdiction U/s. 10 (c) of the

         Act mentioned the land of the petitioners without impleading
Patna High Court CWJC No.7936 of 2026 dt.30-06-2026
                                             3/5




         them party in the Appeal and hence the petitioners had/have no

         knowledge about the decision of the Appellate Court or

         accordingly they could not file the Revision U/s. 35 of the

         Bihar     Consolidation        of     Holdings   and   Prevention   of

         Fragmentation Act, 1956 within a reasonable period though

         there is no statutory period prescribed for preferring Revision.

                         5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further

         submits that the dispute before the Consolidation Officer was

         appertaining to land bearing Khata No. 43 Khesra No. 299

         having an area of 2.83 decimal situated at Mauza-Madheli,

         Thana No. 155 in the district of Katihar. It has been submitted

         that the aforesaid land is the Raiyati/ancestral land of the

         petitioners and the private respondents have no concern, at all,

         in the aforesaid land and this land has been coming in peaceful

         physical possession of the ancestors of the petitioners, who

         had purchased it through a registered sale-deed dated

         02.11.1960 and, later on, it fell in their share and accordingly

         the land was muted in the name of the father of the petitioners.

                         6. It has been contended on behalf of the

         petitioners that the orders passed by the Deputy Director,

         Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer are simply

         untenable in the eyes of law on account of the same being ex-
Patna High Court CWJC No.7936 of 2026 dt.30-06-2026
                                           4/5




         parte in nature, adversely affecting the rights of the petitioners

         as Raiyat without affording any opportunity of hearing to

         them.

                         7. Against the aforesaid orders, the petitioners

         attempted to file revision application in terms of Section 35 of

         the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of

         Fragmentation Act, 1956, but the Office of the Director,

         Consolidation, Patna refused to accept the same for the reasons

         best known to it.

                         8. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioners

         prays for a direction to the Director, Consolidation, Bihar,

         Patna (respondent No. 2) to accept the revision application and

         decide it on merits after hearing all the parties concerned.

                         9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

         State does not dispute that there is a provision for filing

         revision against the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer

         and the Deputy Director, Consolidation and the same could

         have been entertained by the Office of the Director,

         Consolidation, but in not accepting the same, they are simply

         shirking away from their statutory duty of deciding the claims

         of the petitioners.

                         10. In this backdrop, the respondent No. 2, i.e.,
              Patna High Court CWJC No.7936 of 2026 dt.30-06-2026
                                                         5/5




                       the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna is hereby directed to

                       accept the revision application, if the same is filed under

                       Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and

                       Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 within a period of

                       three weeks henceforth, after completing all the necessary

                       formalities as required under law to be done by the petitioners,

                       and having heard all the parties concerned including the

                       official respondents, may decide the issue on its merits without

                       being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court in the

                       present order.

                                       11. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the

                       writ petition stands disposed off.

                                       12. It is expected that respondent No. 2 will take

                       up the matter in right earnest and will make all endeavors to

                       dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.

                                       13. Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands

                       disposed off accordingly.



                                               (Rana Vikram Singh, J)

Praveen-II/

AFR/NAFR                 NAFR
CAV DATE                 N/A
Uploading Date           30.06.2026
Transmission Date        N/A