rectify the clerical error apparent on the face of the record but in the present case, Deputy Director, Consolidation, Hajipur adjudicated the right and title of the parties taking help of section 33A of the aforesaid Act. He further submitted that subsequently, when petition to recall the said order was filed, Deputy Director, Consolidation, Vaishali at Hajipur realized his fault and recalled the aforesaid order, passing the order dated 3.2.1998. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in C.W.J.C. no. 11299 of 2013, a coordinate bench of this court vide order dated 5.8.2014 has already held that right and title of the parties can not be adjudicated under section 33A of the Consolidation Act. He, next, submitted that admittedly, order dated 3.2.1998 was passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Vaishali at Hajipur which was challenged in Revision case no. 357/1999 but the aforesaid Revision case no. 357/1999 was heard by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Headquarter. The officer who passed the order dated 3.2.1998 and the officer who passed the order dated 20.6.2000 are of same status and rank and, therefore, Deputy Director, Consolidation, Headquarter had got no jurisdiction to decide Revision case no. 357/1999. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision reported in 2011 (4) PLJR 870 (Biswanath Rai vs. The State of Bihar & ors) in which it has been held by a coordinate bench of this court that where an order is passed in appellate jurisdiction by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, then, notwithstanding delegation, an officer of his rank could not exercise revisional jurisdiction because revisional jurisdiction is a jurisdiction of superintendence over subordinate authority. He also relied upon an unreported judgment of Budhu Singh vs The State of Bihar and others passed on 9.4.2015 in C.W.J.C. no. 6746 of 1993.
