The State of Bihar vs Bipin Bihari Tiwari

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15353 of 2021
======================================================
Vijay Kumar Tiwari Son of Late Dasharath Tiwari, resident of Village -
Dengri, P.O.- Dengri, P.S.- Kudra, District - Kaimur (Bhabua).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Collector, Kaimur at Bhabua.
2. The Hon'ble Chairman, Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna.
3. The Circle Officer, Kudra, District- Kaimur.
st
… Respondent 1 Set
4. The Director, Consolidation (Headquarter), Bihar, Patna.
5. The Consolidation Officer, Kudra, Kaimur at Bhabua.
nd
… Respondent 2 Set
6. Bipin Bihari Tiwari, Son of Late Lalan Tiwari, Resident of Village - Bhabua
Bag, Ward No. 19, Tiwari Tola, P.S.- Bhabua, District - Kaimur.
7. Most. Savitri Devi, Wife of Late Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Resident of Village -
Bhabua Bag, Ward No. 19, Tiwari Tola, P.S.- Bhabua, District - Kaimur.
8. Ayush Kumar, minor son of Late Manoj Kumar Tiwari, at present living
under the guardianship of his surviving mother Most. Savitri Devi. Resident
of Village - Bhabua Bag, Ward No. 19, Tiwari Tola, P.S.- Bhabua, District –
Kaimur.
rd
… Respondent 3 Set
9. Dindayal Bind, Son of Late Chandra Deo Bind, resident of Village -
Bisunpura, P.O.- Dengri, P.S.- Kudra, District - Kaimur (Bhabua).
th
… Respondent 4 Set
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15863 of 2021
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through Collector, kaimur At/Po/PS-Bhabua, District-
Kaimur
2. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Mohania At/PO/PS-Mohania,
District-Kaimur.
3. The Circle Officer, Kudra At/PO/PS-Kudra, District-Kaimur.
4. The Director, Consolidation (Headquarter), Bihar, Patna.
5. The Consolidation Officer, Kudra, Kaimur at Bhabua.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Bipin Bihari Tiwari S/o-Late Lallan Tiwari Resident of Village-Bhabua
Ward No.-19 (Tiwari Tola) P.O./PS-Bhabua, District-Kaimur.

Patna High Court CWJC No.15353 of 2021 dt.15-05-2026
2/29
2. Most. Savitri Kuer W/o-Late Manoj Kumar Tiwari Resident of Village-
Bhabua Ward No.-19 (Tiwari Tola) P.O./PS-Bhabua, District-Kaimur.
3. Ayush KUmar Minor S/o-Late Manoj Kumar Tiwary through his Mother
Savitri Kuer the Legal Guardian.Resident of Village-Bhabua Ward No.-19
(Tiwari Tola) P.O./PS-Bhabua, District-Kaimur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15353 of 2021)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Radha Mohan Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Chandra Shekhar Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Surekha Kumari, AC to GP-18
For the Respondent No.6 & 7 : Mr. Vinod Kumar Seth, Advocate
Mr. Bipin Kumar Tiwari, In Person
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15863 of 2021)
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Nutan Sahay, AC to AAG-12
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar Tiwari, In Person
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 15-05-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
CWJC No. 15353 of 2021
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred
challenging the order dated 15.11.2019 passed in BLT Case No.
1186 of 2016, whereby the BLT case filed by the petitioner has
been dismissed, on the ground that the same is erroneous and
based on misplaced application of law affirming the order
passed by Director, Consolidation in Consolidation Revision
case No. 209 of 2010 allowing correction of entries with
regards to land in consolidation records as prayed by private
respondents.
Submission on behalf of the petitioner

Patna High Court CWJC No.15353 of 2021 dt.15-05-2026
3/29
3. The case of the petitioner in the instant writ
petition is that Respondent 3rd Set as revisionist directly filed
Consolidation Revision No. 209 of 2010 on 17.08.2010 in the
court of Director Consolidation, Patna which was admitted on
19.08.2010 praying for correction of Chak Records of Rights in
their names. The revisionist 3rd Set also filed Amendment
petition in the said Consolidation Revision case stating that
description of land under Schedule-A which is 45.02 acre of
land of CS Khata No. 50 and 3.24 acre of land of CS Khata No.
51 and though he gave descriptions of this particular portion of
land with CS Khata and CS Plot and also RS Khata and RS
Plot but no details of Chak Khata and Chak plot was given
which is to be rectified.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Consolidation Revisionist 3rd deliberately made State of Bihar
as party and not the present petitioner and Director,
Consolidation Head Quarter in Consolidation Rev. No. 209 of
2010 allowed this in favour of Private Respondent 3rd set
whereas Mauza-Dengri, where land in question is situated, has
been denotified under Section-26A of The Bihar Consolidation
of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (for
brevity, the Act) vide gazette notification dated 25.06.2009

Patna High Court CWJC No.15353 of 2021 dt.15-05-2026
4/29
(Ann-P3).
5. It has next been submitted that the Order sheet of
the said Revision dated 19.08.2010 is brought on record to
indicate that revision has been entertained after denotification
of said Mauza. Thus, the order passed on 04.07.2011 by
Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna is without jurisdiction
since the same has been passed on the petition of private
respondents after notification for closure.
6. Learned Counsel further submits that vide order
dated 18.09.2015, passed by this court in CWJC No. 3499 of
2012, petitioners were granted liberty to approach Bihar Land
Tribunal, Patna, (in short ‘BLT’) for seeking appropriate
reliefs. (Ann-P6).
7. It is the submission of the learned counsel that
from the prayer contained in the petition of Consolidation
Revision No. 209 of 2010, which has been given in Para-12 of
the writ petition, it would be clear that when the Revision
application was being filed there was no order of Lower
Consolidation Authorities and it is further substantiated from
the fact that neither in the main revision application nor in the
amendment petition there is no reference of any consolidation
proceedings which was filed by the respondent 3rd set and the

Patna High Court CWJC No.15353 of 2021 dt.15-05-2026
5/29
BLT has completely failed to acknowledge the same and
believed in the fabricated story of filing of Consolidation case
No. 127 of 2008-09 before Consolidation Officer, which is
antedated and also without consideration of subsequent report
of the findings of three member committee.
8. It has been submitted that consolidation operation
was finalised in year 1981 and final Chak Khatiyan has been
delivered to Raiyats whereas revision was filed after 29 years
in the year 2010 and at the same time no objection is seen to
have been filed under Section 10 of the Act nor any appeal
been preferred under Section 12 of the Act.
9. The learned counsel further submitted that 1.78
acres of land of R.S. Khata No. 77 (Chak Khata No. 76) was
settled by the State of Bihar in the name of the father of the
petitioner, Dashrath Tiwari, since deceased through Settlement
Case No. 01/1978-79, as the land was entered as Anabad Bihar
Sarkar. After the settlement of 1.78 acres of land by the
government in the name of the father of the petitioner,
Jamabandi was created in his name and rent receipts were
granted in his name. (Ann-P/8)
10. It was stated that by order dated 25.02.1983
passed by the Consolidation Officer, Kudra in Consolidation

Patna High Court CWJC No.15353 of 2021 dt.15-05-2026
6/29
case No. 75 of 1982-83 a total of 7.46 acres of land in Chak
Khata No. 74, Chak Plot No. 316 was ordered to be recorded in
the name of the father of the petitioner. The land out of CS
Khata No. 50, CS Plot No.470 and 477 measuring 8.68 Acres
was settled in favour of Dashrath Tiwari by ex-landlord,
Ganesh Tiwari at the time of vesting of Jamindari and rent
receipts were granted for the same by the State in the year
1963-64 and 1964-65.
11. It is next submitted that since the father of
petitioner was in the army during revisional survey operation, it
was wrongly prepared in the name of State of Bihar but name
of father and uncle of the petitioner appears as “Awaidh
Dakhalkar” and as the petitioner was in cultivating possession
over the said land he was not aware of such entry in the name
of State of Bihar. On account of the same an application for
correction of Chak records of rights was filed for the land in
question and the same was allowed vide order dated
25.02.1983 in favour of father of petitioner, which has been
brought on records recently since it was traced out now.
12. It has been asserted that the said corrections in
the Chak entries was never challenged by the respondent 3rd
set even at the initial stage of consolidation under section 10(2)

Patna High Court CWJC No.15353 of 2021 dt.15-05-2026
7/29
of the Act or section 12 of the Act and later in the year 2010
they filed the Revision Case No. 209/2020 on 17.08.2010
directly before the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna, i.e.
after de-notification made on 25.06.2009.
13. It is thus submitted that the order dated
04.07.2011 by Director, Consolidation has made the basis on
order passed in Revenue Suit No. 1472 of 1970, which finds no
traces of filing and it was a creation of the respondent 3rd set as
no such suit was ever filed or instituted and no record is
available in the revenue department either at Arah or at
Sasaram or even Bhabua.
14. It has further been averred that registered
partition deed dated 03.06.1985 clarifies that predecessors of
Respondent 3rd set have not partitioned any land of Mauza
Dengri and on strength of forged Revenue Suit No. 1472 of
1970 they started claiming the same and the Director,
Consolidation has relied and passed impugned order.
15. He further points out that under RTI Act,
information provided to one Bipin Bihari Tiwari intimates that
many plots of RS Khata 67 have been allotted to different
persons, who are in possession over such land with distinct
Jamabandi but they were not impleaded, despite being

Patna High Court CWJC No.15353 of 2021 dt.15-05-2026
8/29
necessary parties and further some land was settled under khata
No. 76 for cultivation purposes as well and even those holding
Red Card were not made a party in the Consolidation Revision
Case no. 209 of 2010. (Ann-16)
16. It has further been contended that a three
member committee constituted by Tribunal has in its reports
submitted that Consolidation Case No. 127 of 2008-09 has
been antedated and cut marks with black ink throws doubt on
fraud played by respondent 3rd set.
17. It has been submitted that reliance of BLT in the
case of Sheikh Haider Zan v Md. Yusuf, 2000(2)PLJR 338
deals with power under Section 35 of the Act, which is held to
be independent and bar under Section 10 of the Act is not
applicable to Revisional authority is erroneous and reliance is
misplaced. Thus, on the basis of this misplaced reliance on
case law, BLT passed an order for the petitioner to seek relief
before civil court, which is wholly unsustainable in law.
18. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has thus summarized his arguments and has
emphasized all the legal grounds which he has relied upon. It
has been stated that once the land in question was denotified
under Section 26A of the Act on 25.06.2009, whether the

Patna High Court CWJC No.15353 of 2021 dt.15-05-2026
9/29
Director, Consolidation could have entertained Consolidation
Revision No. 209 of 2010 directly filed before him without
there being any order impugned of the Lower Consolidation
Authority.
19. It has also been submitted that respondent 3rd
set, the revisionist, having not filed any case under the Bihar
Tenancy Act or under the Consolidation Act, could not have
obtained an order under the Bihar Tenancy Act, and the Court
relied upon an order passed in Revision Suit No. 1472 of 1970,
which has been contradicted through information received
under the Right to Information Act, wherein it has been stated
that there has been no case filed as Revision Suit No. 1472 of
1970 for Mauza Dingri.
20. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the following judgments:
1. Bhanumati Devi vs. State of Bihar & Ors.,
2011(3) PLJR 542. (Mansaram vs. S.P.Pathak & Ors. AIR
1983 SC 1239);
2. Hari Narain Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar &
Ors., (1997) 2 BLJR 982;
3. Most. Prabhawati Kumari & Ors. vs. State of
Bihar & Ors., 2019(4)PLJR 430;

Patna High Court CWJC No.15353 of 2021 dt.15-05-2026
10/29
4. Sher Singh v. Jt. Director of Consolidation,
(1978) 3 SCC 172
21. Another contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that when there was a partition effected between
two sons of Ganesh Tiwari, namely, Lalan Tiwari and Rajendra
Tiwari, wherein lands of Mauza Panchhi and Bhabhua were
partitioned and there was no description of land at Mauza-
Dengri therein, then in that view of the matter, the claim of
respondent 3rd set over the said land was not maintainable. It
has been stated as to whether the report received under the
Right to Information Act can be ignored, when the same is read
in consonance with paragraph nos. 1 and 10 of the petition filed
by the respondent 3rd set and lastly, when no prayer for
condonation of delay was made and no order condoning the
delay was passed, can the revision application be entertained
after a lapse of prolonged time with inordinate delay, the same
being contrary to the settled law.
Submission on behalf of the State
22. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
State submitted that alleged chak khatiyan 76 and 77 were
registered under the title and possession of government. It is
submitted that due to grip over consolidation officer, the

Patna High Court CWJC No.15353 of 2021 dt.15-05-2026
11/29
respondent, namely, Bipin Bihari Tiwari and Manoj Tiwari
interpolated records and got their name registered. It is next
submitted that case No. 127 of 2008-09 was never initiated and
in fact petition was rejected by the Consolidation Officer as he
had no jurisdiction over it.
23. It has next been submitted that the certificate
issued by Gram Kachahri suffers from infirmity and forged
signatures which negates possession of respondent, namely,
Bipin Bihari Tiwari or his ancestors. It is submitted that no
notice was sent to the govt. and no actual proceeding could be
found out to have taken place. Even the RTI filed by Vijay
Kumar Tiwari shows that Revenue Suit No. 1472 of 1970 on
which respondent relies shows that it is not related to said
mauza.
24. It is the submission of the state that the
consolidation operation closed in the year 1981 but a petition
filed by respondents 3rd set under Section 10(b) was filed in
2008, which ought to have been dismissed. Even the Jamindari
return and rent receipts granted by zamindars are allegedly
forged. It is further submitted that no state authority was
informed about the report submitted by the Consolidation
Officer as sought by respondent no. 3 Director, Consolidation.

Patna High Court CWJC No.15353 of 2021 dt.15-05-2026
12/29
It is submitted that the basis of order by respondent no. 3 is
alleged Revenue Suit No. 1472 of 1970 but the said mauza was
already confirmed under Section 26-A of the Act.
25. The learned State Counsel submitted that survey
operation ended in the year 1969 and record of rights were
distributed amongst raiyats which did not include respondents
3rd set or their ancestors but only after considerable lapse they
chose to rely on order of said Revenue suit.
26. It was lastly submitted that the State cannot
suffer for wrongs committed by official/ staff/ counsels and that
its interests are to be subservient. It is also submitted that Circle
Officer initiated rent fixation in favor of respondent 3rd set and
also jamabandi was created in their names in view of the order
of Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna dated 04.07.2011.
27. It is lastly submitted that Jamabandi Sudhar
Case allowed the challenge to be preferred before Bihar Land
Tribunal (for brevity, BLT) but it was stayed in favour of
Respondent no. 6 by BLT, which is challenged here in instant
writ along with prayer for setting aside the order of Director,
Consolidation dated 04.07.2011.
Submission on behalf of the respondent no.6
28. Mr. Bipin Bihari Tiwari, the respondent no. 6,

Patna High Court CWJC No.15353 of 2021 dt.15-05-2026
13/29
appeared in person and submitted that he is concerned with 1/4
share in Khata No. 2 allotted to his great grandfather and which
eventually passed on to his father. Since, no one took care of
the concerned land, it is submitted that they were recorded in
name of State of Bihar, which was later challenged whereupon
suit 1472 of 1970 was registered and vide order dated
18.06.1974 they were declared in name of his father.
29. It is next submitted that further challenge was
made before Consolidation Officer because they were in actual
physical possession but some persons were creating trouble
after which revision was allowed vide Order dated 04.07.2011.
(Ann-6/G).
30. It has further been submitted that after correction
in the entries after Revision was allowed, rent receipts and land
possession certificate was issued which was challenged by
petitioner in three cases which came only to be rejected against
petitioner. He next submits that they moved before Director,
Consolidation only after Consolidation Officer denied power to
entertain the case on 02.06.2010, and hence, the case falls
within the ambit of Section 26A(2) and notification under
Section 26A of the Act does not come into the way.
31. It is submitted that a registered partition took

Patna High Court CWJC No.15353 of 2021 dt.15-05-2026
14/29
place on 03.06.1985 which was settled by an ex-landlord in the
name of his father. It is also submitted that the Three Men
Committee was prepared and BLT passed an order on the basis
of the first report. He further submitted that Director
consolidation had inherent powers to entertain Revision as this
case was filed before denotification under Section 26A of the
Act and he is covered under Section 26A(2) which is rightly
considered by BLT.
32. Mr. Tiwari submitted that he demanded RTI
which indicated the possibility of burning records. He also
denies that order dated 02.06.2010 to be antedated and submits
that in case of any confusion, civil court has to be approached
and not revenue court or consolidation court.
33. It is further submitted that petitioner was not a
necessary party and as such not made a party however, he was
fighting litigation before consolidation officer and not barred
by virtue of Section 26A of the Act.
34. It has been submitted that vide order dated
07.02.2018 passed in Settlement Cancellation Case, the District
Magistrate cancelled the parcha issued in the name of 13 red
card holders including that of father of petitioner. (Ann-6/P). It
is also submitted that petitioner has made illegal possession

Patna High Court CWJC No.15353 of 2021 dt.15-05-2026
15/29
which does not create any title for any land.
35. He has further brought to the notice of this
Court the order wherein he was directed to file an application
under Section 35 of the Consolidation Act. He has stated that
an amendment petition was filed on 17.04.2011, wherein the
details of the earlier case were brought on record and the same
was also mentioned in the written arguments filed on
09.06.2011. He had also contended that the first Three Men
Committee report in paragraph nos. 7, 8 and 9 had given a
finding in his favor. He had also pointed out that the records of
the original case were burnt in fire, as he was informed, and
therefore any information with regard to the said record given
to the petitioner cannot be relied upon.
36. It has thus been submitted that there is no
illegality in the order impugned and the Bihar Land Tribunal,
Patna, has rightly confirmed the order passed by the Director,
Consolidation, whereby correction of entries was allowed with
regard to the land in question.
CWJC No. 15863 of 2021
37. The State of Bihar has preferred another Writ
petition titled CWJC No. 15863 of 2021. Through this writ
petition it is challenging the petitioner’s claim, who preferred

Patna High Court CWJC No.15353 of 2021 dt.15-05-2026
16/29
CWJC 15353 of 2021 as well as the impugned orders passed by
the Director Consolidation, Bihar as well as the order passed by
the BLT, Patna. It has been contended that the Director of
Consolidation vide order dated 04.07.2011 allowed in favour of
Bipin Bihari Tiwari (Respondent No. 1) for correction of
entries with regard to land in question. The Chak Khata No. 76
is recorded as Anabad Bihar Sarkar and Khata No.77 is
recorded as Anabad Sarva Sadharan (Ann 1 and Ann 1/A) and
similarly RS Khata No. 77 and RS Khata No.78 is recorded as
Anabad Bihar Sarkar and Anabad Sarva Sadharan respectively.
The impugned lands, as per Cadastral Survey khatiyan records,
CS Khata No.50 is entered as ‘Gairmajarua Malik’ and CS
Khata No.51 as ‘Gairmajarua Aam’. At the time when
Consolidation Revision case No. 209 of 2010 was filed by
Bipin Bihari Tiwari, the impugned land belonged to the
government and at the time of filing their petition before
Consolidation Director the Mauza-Dengari was denotified
under Section 26A of the Act (Ann-4). It is stated that Mauza-
Dengri, Thana No.400 was notified under 3(i) of the Act vide
notification dated 26.10.1970 and full opportunities were given
for hearing including the petitioners of Consolidation Revision
No.209/2010. Hence, it has been prayed on behalf the State that

Patna High Court CWJC No.15353 of 2021 dt.15-05-2026
17/29
the order dated 15.11.2019, whereby BLT has dismissed cases
preferred by petitioners before it and granted liberty to
approach civil court for claiming lands in question as well as
prayed for order dated 04.07.2011 passed by Director of
Consolidation to be set aside.
38. Learned AC to GP-18 appearing on behalf of
the State submitted that the land in question is Gairmazruwa
Malik land and that the cadastral survey Khata Nos. 50 and 51
have been recorded as Gairmazruwa Aam land. It has been
contended that the title and possession of the State have
continued since inception and still subsist in favour of the
State.
39. It has further been submitted that respondent No.
6, in connivance with the revenue officials, made interpolations
in the revenue entries by hand and ink. The State has also
disputed the existence of any Case No. 127 of 2008-09
allegedly instituted during the year 2008-09 and has contended
that the same appears to be a fabricated case, wherein the
proceedings were conducted only on paper and no such
proceeding had in fact ever taken place.
40. It has been argued that the order passed in
favour of respondent No. 1(Respondent No. 6 in the connected

Patna High Court CWJC No.15353 of 2021 dt.15-05-2026
18/29
writ’) is wholly unsustainable in law, as the land in question
belongs to the State of Bihar and neither the petitioner of
CWJC No. 15353 of 2021 nor respondent No. 1 of the present
case, namely, Bipin Bihari Tiwari, can lay any valid claim over
the land in question.
41. Submission on behalf of the intervenor-
respondent, namely, Vijay Kumar Tiwari (Sanjit Kumar
Chaubey)(Petitioner of the connected writ petition), advanced
by Mr. Radha Mohan Pandey, Learned Counsel in reply to the
writ petition filed on behalf of the State, is that the Government
had settled 1.78 acres of land in favour of Dashrath Tiwari, and
the same is evident from Annexure-7 appended to the first writ
application. Drawing the attention of this Court towards
Annexure-8, it has further been submitted that even rent
receipts were issued in favour of Dashrath Tiwari, father of the
petitioner in CWJC No. 15353 of 2021, referring to Annexure-
9, wherein the order passed by the Chakbandi Officer, Kudra is
contained, it has been submitted that after evaluating the facts
and circumstances of the case, a direction was issued for entry
of total 7.46 acres of land in the name of the father of the
petitioner after deleting the same from the account of the State
of Bihar. It has thus been submitted that the claim of the State

Patna High Court CWJC No.15353 of 2021 dt.15-05-2026
19/29
over the land in question is against the settled principles of law
and the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ
petition is fit to be dismissed.
Submission on behalf of respondent no. 1 (in
CWJC No. 15863 of 2021)
42. The respondent No. 1, Sri. Bipin Bihari Tiwari,
who appeared personally, has reiterated the submissions
advanced by him in the earlier case, i.e., CWJC No. 15353 of
2021, and contended that the claim of the State is not tenable in
the eyes of law. It has further been submitted that the order in
question had been passed by the BLT, Patna in favour of
respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the same deserves to be
restored, being legal and based on correct findings of fact.
Consideration
43. Having heard learned counsel for the parties in
both the cases, this Court has noted a few facts which need to
be reiterated. The land in question admittedly, fell under
consolidation proceedings and an order in favour of the father
of the writ petitioner, namely, Dashrath Tiwari, was passed in
the year 1983 in Consolidation Case No. 75 of 1982-83.
Secondly, admittedly, Revenue Case No. 209 of 2010 was
preferred under Section 35 of the Consolidation Act, and the

Patna High Court CWJC No.15353 of 2021 dt.15-05-2026
20/29
provision is reproduced hereunder:
35. “Revision and Reference.
[Substituted by Act 27 of 1975.]
The Director of Consolidation may of
his own motion or on the application of any party
or on reference being made by any subordinate
authority, call for and examine the record of any
case decided or proceedings taken by such
authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as
to the regularity of the proceeding; or as to the
correctness, legality or propriety of any order
passed by such authority in the cases or
proceedings, and may after allowing the parties
concerned an opportunity of being heard, make
such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks
fit.”
44. It is also an admitted case that no application
was filed pursuant to the order passed in Consolidation Case
No. 75 of 1982-83 on 25.02.1983.
45. Considering the aforesaid facts, one thing is
evident that an order was passed by the Consolidation Officer,
rightly or wrongly, however, no challenge was made to such
order. It is also an admitted fact that the consolidation
proceedings under Section 26A of the Act was denotified on
25.06.2009 and till that time, the private respondents or the
State neither challenged the entries in the chak record-of-rights

Patna High Court CWJC No.15353 of 2021 dt.15-05-2026
21/29
at the initial stage of consolidation nor till the date of
denotification.
46. This Court has also observed that initially, when
an application under Section 35 of the Act was filed by the
respondent, namely, Bipin Bihari Tiwari, the same was filed
directly before the Director, Consolidation without referring to
any order passed by the Consolidation Officer and no order was
made impugned. The said fact is also evident from the perusal
of the order passed by the Director, Consolidation on
04.07.2011, wherein in paragraph No. 1, the Director,
Consolidation, Bihar, Patna has stated as under:
“This Case in revision under section 35
of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and
Prevention of Fragmentation Act has been directly
filed seeking relief for correction in relevant
registered of the Consolidation operation and the
record of right by entering the names of the
petitioners with respect to the disputed lands and
also for allotment of Chak/ Chaks in their names
for the disputed lands.”
47. This brings us to a situation that clearly gives
rise to a presumption that the application under Section 35 of
the Act was filed directly seeking relief only for correction in
the relevant registers of the consolidation operation and the

Patna High Court CWJC No.15353 of 2021 dt.15-05-2026
22/29
record-of-rights, for registering the name of Bipin Bihari
Tiwari and others. I am reminded of the second Three Men
Committee report dated 21.08.2019, wherein the committee
found interpolations in the case register of the Consolidation
Office, Kudra with regard to Case No. 127 of 2008-09 and
expressed suspicion over the conduct of the Consolidation
Officer, Kudra. The Committee found collusive and fraudulent
entries in the case register in Case No. 127 of 2008-09,
therefore the contention raised by the petitioner, Vijay Kumar
Tiwari, that the private respondents cannot be allowed the
benefit of Section 26A(2) of the Act, as Consolidation Case
No. 127 of 2008-09 was not pending on the date of notification
under Section 26A(1) and the records of the Consolidation
Office, Kudra were fraudulently tampered with in collusion
with the Consolidation Officer and the order dated 26.01.2010
was collusively passed in the said case, is of substance.
48. The petitioner, Vijay Kumar Tiwari, as well as
the State of Bihar have raised challenge to the genuineness and
veracity of the certified copy of the order dated 18.06.1974 said
to have been passed by the Survey Settlement Officer, Bhabua,
in Revenue Suit No. 1472 of 1970. In view of such allegations
of fraudulent act, this Court deems fit and proper not to go into

Patna High Court CWJC No.15353 of 2021 dt.15-05-2026
23/29
the details of the respective claims over the disputed land in
question and rather confine itself to the question of law as to
whether an application under Section 35 of the Act could have
been entertained directly by the Director, Consolidation, Bihar,
Patna, which is stated to be contrary to the statutory provision
contained therein.
49. It is a settled principle of law that any order
passed by the Consolidation Officer has the force and effect of
a decree of a civil court in a suit between the parties and,
therefore, the only remedy available to the respondent, Bipin
Bihari Tiwari or the State of Bihar would have been to file a
suit challenging such order passed in favour of the father of the
petitioner, Vijay Kumar Tiwari.
50. This Court has perused the impugned order
passed by the BLT, Patna, wherein the BLT has taken into
consideration the order passed in Revenue Suit No. 1472 of
1970 under Section 106A of the BT Act holding the same to
have the force of a decree of a civil court and to be binding as
an order of a Court or Tribunal of limited jurisdiction or under
a special statute until declared otherwise in accordance with
law. The BLT has also held that a similar proposition applies
with regard to the proceeding and the order passed by the

Patna High Court CWJC No.15353 of 2021 dt.15-05-2026
24/29
Consolidation Officer, Kudra in Consolidation Case No. 127 of
2008-09. There is no dispute with regard to the aforesaid
proposition, however, when there was a contrary finding by the
Three Men Committee, whose report noted that the order had
been passed in collusion with the Consolidation Officer, Kudra
and that no records relating to the same were available,
therefore, reliance placed by the BLT on such cases cannot be
held to be legal.
51. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, Vijay Kumar Tiwari, on a judgment in
Bhanumati Devi (supra) , wherein the Court was confronted
with the question as to whether the Director, Consolidation can
entertain a belated revision application. The said question was
answered in negative relying upon the judgment in Mansaram
vs. S.P. Pathak & Ors. (AIR 1983 SC 1239) and it was held
that after a matter had been settled as far back as in the year
1983, the same could not be challenged by any of the parties
after a lapse of twenty years.
52. Similarly, in the present case, the order of the
Consolidation Officer was passed in favour of the father of the
petitioner way back in the year 1983 and an application was
filed directly before the Director, Consolidation in the year

Patna High Court CWJC No.15353 of 2021 dt.15-05-2026
25/29
2010. However, in the present case, as an afterthought,
reference to one Revenue Case No. 1472 of 1982-83 has been
made, which was found to be fabricated by the Three Men
Committee. Contrary to the findings arrived at by the BLT, the
judgment of this Court, relied upon by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, Vijay Kumar Tiwari, in the case of Hari Narain
Singh (supra) , taking into consideration various judicial
pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, went on to
hold in paragraph 11 of the said judgment which would be
relevant to note:
“11. Relying upon the said decisions of
the Apex Court, in the case of Shambhunath
Pandey v. state of Bihar and others, reported in
1996 (2) BLJ 41 held that "Section 35 of the Act
does not intend to give such a wide power to the
Director of Consolidation to vest power to the
subordinate authorities, or to justify their illegal
orders, which have been passed by them against
the express provision of the Act under Section 10-
A of the Act which completely bars the subordinate
authorities to re-open the disputes or entries,
against which no objection had been filed at the
stage of Section 10 92) or under Section 10-C and
D of the Act."
"It was further held that"........ the
object of Section 35 of the Act is to empower the

Patna High Court CWJC No.15353 of 2021 dt.15-05-2026
26/29
Director of Consolidation to see that the
subordinate courts are not acting arbitrarily and
illegally in exercise of their jurisdiction but not to
assume to itself the jurisdiction of the original
authority as a fact-finding authority by
appreciating for itself of the facts de novo."”
53. The Special Bench of this Court in the case of
Most. Prabhawati Kumari (supra) has held that the decision
of the Consolidation Authority cannot be reopened or
challenged before a civil court by the parties even after
notification under Section 26 of the Act.
54. In view of such finding, if the jurisdiction of the
civil court is barred once notification under Section 26A of the
Act is made, there was no occasion for even the Director,
Consolidation to initiate a proceeding under Section 35 of the
Act on its own after 27 years from the order passed by the
Consolidation Officer in favour of the father of the petitioner,
Vijay Kumar Tiwari.
55. The argument forwarded by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Vijay Kumar Tiwari, that
the Director of Consolidation in exercise of its power under
Section 35 of the Act could not have gone into questions of fact
or law having no relation to the question of jurisdiction of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.15353 of 2021 dt.15-05-2026
27/29
Consolidation Officer, relying upon the judgment rendered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sher Singh (supra) ,
wherein the jurisdiction of the Director of Consolidation in the
State of Uttar Pradesh was under scrutiny under Section 48 of
the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, which is pari
materia to Section 35 of the Act of the State of Bihar, is of
substance. It has been held in the said case that if the
subordinate consolidation authorities had not acted illegally in
exercise of their jurisdiction, the Director of Consolidation was
not competent to interfere with their decision.
56. Taking the sum and substance of the judgments
referred to hereinabove and the factual aspects of the present
case, it is evident that a chak entry was made in favour of the
father of the petitioner (Vijay Kumar Tiwari) namely, Late
Dashrath Tiwary, way back in the year 1983 and the same was
never challenged either by any private respondent or by the
State of Bihar. Directly after 27 years, an application under
Section 35 of the Act was filed questioning the correctness of
the entries made and the same was entertained by the Director,
Consolidation, Bihar, Patna. This Court has already observed
that the reference to the Revenue Case of 1970 was found to be
fraudulently procured and the same was also not brought on

Patna High Court CWJC No.15353 of 2021 dt.15-05-2026
28/29
record initially while filing the revenue application and only as
an afterthought the same was introduced. Therefore, the
findings arrived at by the Director of Consolidation as well as
the BLT relying on the said case were misconceived.
57. In view of the aforesaid observations, this Court
finds that the order passed by the BLT, Patna in BLT Case No.
1186 of 2016 is misconceived and is therefore, held to be bad
in law and accordingly set aside. This Court also holds that the
Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna exceeded its
jurisdiction in entertaining an application made under Section
35 of the Act directly, as the same was admittedly initiated after
the notification under Section 26A(1) of the Consolidation Act.
58. In consideration thereof, the writ petition being
CWJC No. 15353 of 2021 filed by Vijay Kumar Tiwari is
allowed. As already observed hereinabove, since the order
passed in favour of the father of the petitioner, Vijay Kumar
Tiwari, by the Consolidation Officer way back in 1983 had
never been challenged by any of the authorities or private
respondents, therefore the State of Bihar, at such a belated
stage, raising the question that the land in question was Gair
Mazurwa Malik land and that the State had title and possession
over the same, cannot be gone into at this stage in writ

Patna High Court CWJC No.15353 of 2021 dt.15-05-2026
29/29
jurisdiction. The only remedy available to the State of Bihar is
to challenge the allotment of chak in favour of the petitioner's
father. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition bearing CWJC
No. 15863 of 2021 filed on behalf of the State of Bihar is held
to be misconceived and does not have any merit and the same
stands dismissed.
59. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand
disposed of.
60. Pending IAs, if any, also stands disposed of.

(Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 02.04.2026.
Uploading Date 19.05.2026.
Transmission Date