Reasonable exercise of power within a reasonable time and the abuse of inherent powers to reopen settled matters after a long delay.

Private respondents-2nd set, who are contesting parties have appeared and filed a counter affidavit. The supplementary affidavit is already filed by the petitioners bringing on record the ORDER :dated 21.12.1974 passed by Deputy Director, Consolidation in terms of Section 13(1) read with section 13(4) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act. It is this ORDER :that was passed in the year 1974 that has now been interfered by the Joint Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur in purported exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under Section 35 of the Consolidation Act, which is not prescribed any period of limitation. The revision application was filed being Revision Case no. 5 of 2008 challenging the final ORDER :that was passed on 21.12.1974. Apart from various other issues raised, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Joint Director, Consolidation after more than three decades is not warranted. He relied on the JUDGMENT : of Apex Court in the case of Mansaram –v- S.P. Pathak since reported in AIR 1983 SC 1239 and in particular para 12 thereof and in the case of State of W.B. & ors. –v- Karan Singh Binayak & ors. since reported in (2002) 4 SCC 188 and in particular para 17 thereof. He submits that the ORDER :dated 21.12.1974 was an ORDER :in terms of Section 13(1) of the Consolidation Act whereby Chaks were finally determined and notified. Every body in the village knew that the consolidation proceeding in the village stood terminated by this ORDER :under Section 13(1) of the Act. No party can say that they were not aware of the proceedings. The petitioners further submit that the corrections of Revisional Survey Entry were made after due notice to the parties and even that had been finalized in the year 1974. Now after three decades the private respondents-second set moved the revisional authority taking advantage of the fact that no period of limitation is provided. A purported condonation application was filed. The condonation application is appended as Annexure D to the counter affidavit itself giving explanation as to why the delay in filing the revision application occurred. The material plea is to be found in para 2 and para 4 thereof, which are quoted hereunder:-

“2. That due to ignorance of law and non information about wrong survey recoding earlier these petitioners could not prefer revision.

4. That after obtaining the certified copy of ORDER :sheet of Chakbandi Revision Survey Khatiyan it became transpired to these petitioners that Abdul Quadir had got wrongly ORDER :passed in his favour.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to these pleadings submits that nowhere even an attempt has been made to say that the party was unaware of any ORDER :much less ORDER :dated 21.12.1974 as passed in the consolidation proceeding. What was said was of a wrong ORDER :in survey entry, which apparently would be in proceeding under Section 108 of the Bihar Tenancy Act, which, as noted above, was concluded in 1974.

3. Learned counsel for contesting private respondents second set submits that there being no period of limitation prescribed and in view of JUDGMENT : of this Court that a revision application would be filed directly in terms of Section 35 of the Act. There was nothing wrong in the application, as filed by him, for revision. When he realized the mistake and the wrong, he immediately moved though it may have taken over three decades to realize the mistake. He sought to justify the ORDER :of the Joint Director passed under Section 35 of the Act on merit. In my view, it is not the question of jurisdiction but the question of propriety of exercise of jurisdiction after such a long delay. If this is permitted then on the plea that there is no limitation prescribed and the revisional jurisdiction cover all ORDER :s passed under the Act, then there can never be any finality in the matter.

4. In the facts of the present cas