Director of Consolidation Must Entertain Statutory Revision Under Section 35 Regardless of Delay if Filed by Aggrieved Non-Parties

The petitioners challenge the refusal of the Director, Consolidation, Bihar (Respondent No. 2) to accept their revision application filed under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956.

The revision sought to assail an appellate order dated 20.06.1990 passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, which had reversed a 1988 order regarding land in Khata No. 43, Khesra No. 299.

The petitioners claim the subject land is their ancestral Raiyati property purchased via a registered sale-deed in 1960.

They contend they were never impleaded as parties nor heard in the original or appellate proceedings and only recently became aware of the adverse orders.

1. Whether the Director, Consolidation, is legally obligated to entertain a revision application filed under Section 35 of the Act when a party claims to be aggrieved by an ex-parte order.

2. Whether the lack of a prescribed statutory limitation period under Section 35 allows for the filing of a revision within a reasonable period, especially where the petitioner was not a party to the original proceedings.

Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, which grants the Director of Consolidation the power to call for and examine the record of any case for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity or propriety of proceedings.

Principles of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard (audi alteram partem), noting that orders passed ex-parte against a Raiyat are untenable if they adversely affect their rights without an opportunity of hearing.

The court observed that the State did not dispute the statutory provision for revision under Section 35 nor the fact that the Director’s office had a duty to entertain such claims.

The court found that by refusing to even accept the revision application, the Respondent No. 2 was "shirking away from their statutory duty" to decide legal claims.

The court noted the petitioners' argument that because they were not parties to the lower court proceedings (Consolidation Case No. 289/1988-89 or Appeal No. 16/1990-91), they had no knowledge of the orders until recently.

Since Section 35 does not prescribe a strict statutory limitation period, and the petitioners alleged a violation of natural justice, the court determined that the merits of the dispute must be adjudicated by the statutory authority rather than being summarily rejected at the filing stage.

The Director is ordered to decide the issue on its merits after hearing all concerned parties, including the private and official respondents, without being prejudiced by the High Court's observations, and as expeditiously as possible.