The exercise of revisional jurisdiction after an unreasonable delay, even when no specific limitation is prescribed, may be considered as acting without jurisdiction.

In a consolidation proceeding in 1977 certain entries were made incorporating the names of the petitioners and respondent no.4 in respect of certain lands. The two petitioners are step brothers. On basis of these entries, illegal certificates of possession and title were issued by the consolidation authorities.

2. In the year 2009 i.e. 40 years thereafter, respondent no.4 filed a revision application before the Director, Consolidation under section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’). The Director, Consolidation has set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer of the year 1977 and consequential survey khatian etc in these proceedings. This is what is under challenge in this writ petition.

3. On behalf of respondent no.4 a counter affidavit has been filed stating that respondent no.4, who was residing at Delhi all along, recently retired and returned in the year 2003 and then learnt about these facts. Earlier he had absolutely no information as he had never come to this State since 1964. He, accordingly, on coming to know of these facts filed a revision application, which was allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in 1977 an objection petition was filed by petitioner no.2 with regard to the entry. Immediately applications on behalf of petitioner no.1 and respondent no.4 were filed admitting the facts. Accordingly, orders were passed. According to respondent no.4, this was fraudulent as he had never filed such an application. In fact, what had happened was that respondent no.4 had succeeded to lands of his mother. As said above, petitioners are step brothers. They wrongly got entered their names. Respondent no.4 has only recently come to know the said fact and, accordingly, he moved the Director, Consolidation in revision.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that it is too late in the day to urge these facts. Every one was aware of the consolidation proceedings. The final certificates of possession and title were also issued. It cannot be believed that some one who had land in his name would never verify as to the effect of consolidation proceedings upon his lands. It is now that respondent no.4 having retired, come and chose to litigate, these proceedings were initiated. It is further submitted that even though no period of limitation is prescribed for filing a revision application, it cannot be done at the sweet-will of a party. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in case of Bhanumati Devi vrs. State of Bihar & Ors., since reported in 2011(3) P.L.J.R. 542, wherein noticing judgments of the Apex Court, this Court has held that even though no period of limitation may be prescribed, a party has to move within a reasonable time. In the present case, even assuming that respondent no.4 came to be aware of the alleged fraud in the year 2003 after his retirement, he waited for another six years to move the authorities in revision against the order, which was passed 40 years back.

6. In my view, learned counsel for the petitioners is correct. Even though power of revision under section 35 of the Act contains no provision for limitation, it does not mean that whenever a party wakes up, he can move against an order. Here as seen above, an order was passed over 40 years back. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such a matter would virtually be acting without jurisdiction in view of the decision of this Court as noticed above, In that view of the matter, I have no option, but to set aside the impugned order of the Director, Consolidation, as contained in Annexure 8 being dated 08.08.2012 in Revision Petition No. 148 of 2009 and, accordingly, Annexure 8 is set aside.

7. It may be noted here that while respondent no.4 took a chance before the consolidation authorities, he was apparently conscious of his short coming and, therefore, he had already filed a title suit, which, both the parties agree, is pending.

8. This