Revisional Powers Under Consolidation Act Cannot Be Exercised After De-notification or Inordinate Delay to Reopen Settled Entries

The land in question (Mauza-Dengri) was subject to consolidation proceedings. In 1983, the Consolidation Officer ordered entries in favor of the petitioner’s father, Dashrath Tiwari

In 2009, the area was denotified under Section 26A of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956

In 2010 (27 years later), Private Respondent No.6 filed a Revision Case (No. 209 of 2010) directly before the Director, Consolidation, seeking correction of records based on an alleged 1970 Revenue Suit

The Director allowed the revision in 2011, and the Bihar Land Tribunal (BLT) subsequently affirmed this order in 2019, dismissing the petitioner's challenge

The petitioner challenged these orders on grounds of lack of jurisdiction after denotification and fraudulent claims

1. Whether the Director, Consolidation, could entertain a Revision Application under Section 35 of the Act directly after the Mauza had been denotified under Section 26A

2. Whether a revision application can be entertained after an inordinate delay (27-29 years) without an order condoning the delay

3. Whether the Director, Consolidation, could go into questions of fact regarding jurisdiction that were not raised before subordinate authorities

Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, which grants the Director revisional powers to examine the correctness of orders passed by subordinate authorities

Section 26A of the Act regarding the closure of consolidation operations

Bhanumati Devi v. State of Bihar regarding the illegality of entertaining revisions after gross delay

Hari Narain Singh v. State of Bihar which restricts the Director from assuming original jurisdiction as a fact-finding authority

Most. Prabhawati Kumari v. State of Bihar establishing that consolidation decisions cannot be reopened post-notification

The Court reasoned that once a notification under Section 26A(1) of the Act is issued, the consolidation process is closed, and the Director lacks jurisdiction to entertain new, direct applications under Section 35

The Court found that the Revision Case No. 209 of 2010 did not challenge any specific subordinate order but sought original relief for record correction, which is outside the scope of revisional power

A three-member committee report highlighted that the private respondent’s claims and the Consolidation Officer’s records (Case No. 127 of 2008-09) were suspicious, interpolated, and likely fabricated

The Court emphasized that an entry made in 1983 cannot be challenged after 27 years, as Section 35 does not grant arbitrary power to reopen settled matters after such a lapse of time

CWJC No. 15353 of 2021 (Petitioner) was allowed, and the orders dated 04.07.2011 (Director) and 15.11.2019 (BLT) were quashed

CWJC No. 15863 of 2021 (State) was dismissed as the State failed to challenge the 1983 allotment at the appropriate time