The main legal point established in the judgment is that the revisional authority should confine its enquiry to examining the legality, propriety, and correctness of the order passed by the court below and should not re-appraise the materials on record and substitute its own finding de novo.

K.K. Mandal, J.

1. Present application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order to quash the order dated 26.03.1992 passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation in Revision Case No. 169 of 1988 (Annexure-1) whereby the revision preferred by respondent nos. 5 and 6 was allowed and the order of the appellate court/authority dated 30.11.1987 (Annexure-9) was quashed and set aside.

2. Relevant facts, in brief, are as under:-

The petitioners claim to be the descendants of late Narsing Narayan Singh who was father of Bhuneshwar Singh, Yogendra Singh (petitioner No. 1) and Late Mathura Singh (father of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3). The subject land(s) in dispute appertain to C.S. Khata No.18, C.S. Plot No. 84 corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 136 (0.86 acres), C.S. Plot No. 110 corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 146 (0.57 acres), C.S. Plot No. 47 corresponding to R.S. plot No. 242 (0.12 acres), C.S. Plot No. 61 corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 251 (0.15 acres and C.S. Plot No. 320 (1.27) acres) in all 2.97 acres of the aforesaid description situate in village Kendua within Gurua Police Station in the district of Gaya. According to the petitioners, the aforesaid land was recorded in the name of one Faggu Gope. He was unable to pay the land rent and, therefore, surrendered the subject land in favour of the ex-intermediaries. By the time such surrender was made by the aforesaid Faggu Gope, there was a collectorate partition amongst the ex-intermediaries. The subject land, however, was wrongly shown in the name of one Bihari Gope. Let it be recorded that the respondents herein are the grandsons of aforesaid Bihari Gope. According to the writ petition, aforesaid Bihari Gope executed a sada Bazidava in respect of the subject land admitting therein that the same belonged to the ex-intermediary. According to the writ petition, the value of the land was less than Rs. 100/- and, as such, the aforesaid Bihari Gope had executed a sada (unregistered) bazidava in relation to the subject land admitting therein that the same did not belong to him. The subject land thereafter stood settled in favour of the ancestors of the writ petitioners. The settlee was recognized as the tenant by the ex-landlord and rent receipts were issued against payment of rent by the ex-intermediary. At the time of vesting of intermediary rights, return was also filed by the ex-intermediary treating the ancestor of the petitioners as raiyat of the subject land(s). It is asserted that the petitioners approached the authority seeking issuance of certified copy thereof but it was revealed by endorsement on requisition that the same was not available with the Revenue authority. It is the case of the petitioners that their ancestor was thereafter recorded in the Revenue records as the tenant and the land rent was being paid continuously to the State of Bihar against the receipts. Some of the rent receipts have been enclosed alongwith the writ petition. The petitioners have also filed diverse documents such as canal purcha to show that the subject land was continuously in their possession as the raiyat of the land. In the year 1975, a proceeding under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 was initiated against Late Bhuneshwar Singh and some of his family members vide L.C. Case No. 435/15 of 1973-74. A verification report (Annexure-5) was submitted by the Anchal Adhikari revealing therein that the subject land was the land of the proceedee under the Act. The said matter was thereafter considered by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms and by an order dated 20.10.1975 (Annexure-6), the ceiling proceeding was dropped in view of the fact that the land held by the family was far less than the entitlement. During Revisional Survey Operation, the subject land, in the light of the aforesaid facts as well as order passed in the land