DHRUW DAYAL MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Govt. counsel, and learned counsel for respondent no.5. Respondent nos.1 to 4 are the official respondents who are represented by learned Govt. counsel, and respondent nos. 5 to 8 are the private respondents to whome notices have been directed to be issued by order dated 28.3.2000. Notices have been served on them but respondent no.5 alone has entered appearance.

(2.) THE petitioner makes a grievance before this Court that the appellate order dated 8.7.1997 (annexure -2), has been passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bhojpur, Arrah, in appeal case no. 41/88 -89, and the revisional order dated 20.8.99 (annexure -3), in revision case no. 259/97 has also been passed by a functionary of the same rank, namely, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rohtas, headquarters Patna. In his submission, this is impermissible in law. He has placed reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ramotar Yadav V/s. Ajaz Haider, 2001 (1) PLJR page 266, as well as an unreported judgment dated 2.5.2001, passed in CWJC No. 495/2001. In that view of the matter, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid revisional order marked as annexure -3 should be set aside and the matter should be remitted back to the Director of Consolidation to dispose of the same in accordance with law.

(3.) THE learned Govt. counsel and learned counsel for respondent no.5 have made their own submissions in opposition.