The exercise of revisional jurisdiction after a significant delay was found to be unreasonable, and the Director could not set aside the orders without examining the lower court records. The Director's findings on the transferability of Sikmi rights and the validity of registered deeds were not supported by evidence.

The orders dated 03.08.2011 passed in Revision Case No.148 of 2010, Revision Case No.152 of 2010 and Revision Case No.153 of 2010 by the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna are under challenge in C.W.J.C. No.17029 of 2011, C.W.J.C. No.17247 of 2011 and C.W.J.C. No.17259 of 2011 respectively.

2. All the writ petitions have been heard together with the consent of the parties in view of the fact that certain common questions are involved. Accordingly, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the State and respondent nos.4 and 5 and have perused the records of all the cases.

4. Shorn of all unnecessary details, short facts that are necessary for adjudication of the matter stand enumerated as under:-

C.W.J.C. No.17029 of 2011:

5. As per the petitioner, in relation to the lands involved in this case as stated in paragraph no.5 of the writ petition, the sikmi rights were purchased by the father of the petitioner from the ancestors of respondent no.4 in the year 1969 through a registered deed. Thereafter, the said lands were settled in favour of the father of the petitioner by State of Bihar. The said lands were actually declared surplus in a Ceiling Proceeding and, thereafter, finding the father of the petitioner to be a Sikmidar in possession of the lands, the said lands were settled in his favour by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Kishanganj in Case No.96/65-66 on 20.09.1976, and eventually purcha was issued in favour of the father of the petitioner. The documents have been brought on record as Annexure 2 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner on 13.05.2016. Further case of the petitioner is that soon after the purchase of Sikmi rights through a registered deed, father of the petitioner came in possession of the land in the year 1969 itself and eventually in case no.60/1976-77 vide order dated 14.01.1977, the Consolidation Officer, Kishanganj directed to record the name of the father of the petitioner in the Chak Scheme of the Mauja which was finally published subsequently. It is further pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that his father died in the year 1990 and after his death, there was partition in the family. The land concerned fell into the share of the petitioner and, accordingly, he started paying rent to the State of Bihar and the State of Bihar, after acknowledging the same, had issued rent receipt in his favour. Some of the rent receipts starting from the year 1991 to 2004 have been appended as Annexure 1 series to the writ petition.

6. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos.4 and 5. The aforesaid order of the Consolidation Officer passed in the year 1977 was put to challenge under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) before the Director, Consolidation by filing Revision Case No.148/2010, i.e., after about 33 years and much after final publication of Chak Scheme in the Mauza concerned.

7. Though no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos.4 and 5, however, original records of the case were called for and from the petition filed under Section 35 of the Act, it appears that the disputed land stood recorded as Sikmi land in the name of the ancestors of the private respondent, namely, Kutub Ali, of which one Anand Mohan Bose was the recorded tenant. The respondents claim to be coming in possession over the disputed lands and have stated that the State of Bihar has no concern with the lands, therefore, the lands could not have been settled by the State as claimed by the petitioner and, thus, on the basis of wrong facts produced by the father of the petitioner, his name came to be recorded in the consolidation record. They claim that the order dated 14.01.1977, was passed ex parte and no notice was ever issued to them in the concerned case. A ground appears to had been taken that the cons