Judgment BIRENDRA PRASAD SINHA, J. In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorary quashing the order dated 3.9.1976 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Aurai in Annexure-1, the order dated 15.7.1978 passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur in Annexure-2 and the order dated 24.12.1979 passed by the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, in Annexure-3 rejecting their objection filed under section 10 (2) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (herein after referred to as the Act). 2. In order to appreciate the questions involved in this case it will be necessary to state some relevant facts. The petitioners claim that they and respondent no. 6 Krishna Kumar Sahi are members of a joint Mitakshra family. According to them their common ancestor Surendra Sahi had two lions, namely, Ram Sreshtha Sahi, who died in the year 1969 and. Daroga Sahi who died in the year 1947. Surendra Sahi had also died in the year 1954. Ram Sreshtha Sahi bad a son named Ramasish Sahi, whose widow is petitioner no.1 and his son is petitioner no. 2. Daroga Sahi had only one son Kishna Kumar Sahi who is respondent no. 6. The petitioners claim that they and respondent no. 6 own some lands in village Rampur, police station Aurai in the district of Muzaffarpur besides other lands in different villages. According to them the lands Were jointly recorded in the cadastral survey. They alleged that during revisional survey respondent no. 6 in collusion with the survey authorities got the survey records of some of the joint family lands incorrectly prepared. Lands of R.S. khata no. 21 were wrongly recorded in the name of respondent no 6. In some other khatas lands of the family remained jointly recorded in the names of Ram Sreshtha Sahi and Krishna Kumar Sahi. After the death of Ram Sreshtha Sahi on enquiry the petitioners came to know that respondent no.6 had got his name exclusively entered in respect at mare than half of the lands of the joint family. They tiled a partition suit claiming half share in the joint family properties and also for the correction of the revisional survey entries. After the death of Ram Sreshtha Sahi on enquiry the petitioners came to know that respondent no.6 had got his name exclusively entered in respect at mare than half of the lands of the joint family. They tiled a partition suit claiming half share in the joint family properties and also for the correction of the revisional survey entries. But in the meanwhile a notification under section 3 of the Act, was published and the suit abated under the provisions of section 4 (c) of the Act. The petitioners thereupon filed an objection under section 10 (2) of the Act, before the Consolidation Officer for correcting the wrong entries in the chak register in respect of original khata no. 21, 22, 264 and 265 of village Rampur in the joint names of the petitioners and respondent no.6 to the extent of half each. It is claimed that certain documents were filed to show that the family was joint and still the family owns the entire lands jointly and, therefore, petitioners are entitled to get their names recorded in the chak register over the lands of the family to the extent of half. The Consolidation Officer rejected their objection by an order passed in date 3.9.1976 (Annexure-1). The petitioner there upon preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director. Consolidation and Appeal No. 288 to 1976 was also dismissed on 15.7.1978 (Annexure-2). The petitioners then filed a revision application which too was dismissed be the Director. Consolidation on 24.12.1979 (Anuexure-3). 3. The cafe of respondent no. 6. inter alia, was that the family was not joint and that a partition had taken place in the year 1930 and the properties in dispute were self, acquired, properties of Daroga Sahi, father of respondent No. 6. 4. Mr. Balabhadra Prasad, Singh learned counsel appearing of behalf of die petitioners submitted that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer in Annexure-1, is not a decision at all and be has completely failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. 4. Mr. Balabhadra Prasad, Singh learned counsel appearing of behalf of die petitioners submitted that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer in Annexure-1, is not a decision at all and be has completely failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. As regards the order passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation in Annexure-2, the contention of the learned counsel is that the learned Deputy Director, Consolidation was absolutely wrong in saying that he could partition only the joint holdings under section 8A of the Act, and had no power to decide any disputed question of title, It was also, submitted that after having found that three was no partition of the family properties in the year 1930 the learned Deputy Director. Consolidation had no material to hold that partition might have taken place in between 1954 and 1969, thus making out a third case. 5. The Consolidation Officer respondent no. 2, passed the following order on 3.9.1976 which is Annexure-l. ^^3&9&76 Jh fofiu fcgkjh ‘kkgh ,oa Jh d`”.k dqekj ‘kkgh vkilh cVokjk gks pqdk gSA cVokjk ds ckn dsokyk ds vk/kkj ij tehu dh [kjhn vyx&vyx dj vyx&vyx uke ls [kkrk [kwy pqdk gSA vr% ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa tehau dh nksuksa Qjhdksa ds chp cjkcj fgLls esa ck¡Vuk lEHko ugha gSaA vr% vkosnu i= ls lEcfU/kr dkjZokbZ LFkfxr dj nh tkrh gSA^^ In appeal the Deputy Director Consolidation, respondent No. 3 after stating the case of parties framed focus issued for consideration, namely, (i) Whether that was a partition in the family in the year 1930; (ii) what were the properties which Daroga Sahi purchased after 1930; (iii) whether Daroga Sahi was the karta of the family and his income went to the family fund; and (iv) whether the family was still joint ? On a consideration of the materials placed before him he came to the conclusion that there was no partition in the family between 1930 and 1975, But again he stated that it appeared that Batwara had taken place between 1954 when Surendrs Sahi died and 1969 when Ram Sreshtha died, Ultimately the Deputy Director, Consolidation held that he had the authority to partition only the joint holdings according to section 8A of the Act, and that he was not to decide whether a particular holdings was a joint family property or was a separate property because there was no provision for such a consideration in the Act. Accordingly, he directed that records be prepared in the name of that person in whose name the land has been entered in the survey records. In revision the Director, consolidation, respondent no. 4 agreed with the Deputy Director, Consolidation, and dismissed the revision. 6. The Act, provides for consolidation of holdings and prevents fragmentation of land. It appears that lathergic legal procedures meet the challenges of the social order are tried to be replaced by quick acting procedure Section 3 empowers the State Government to declare by a notification in the Official Gazette its intention to make a scheme for consolidation of holdings. Section 4 deals with the effect of the said notification and provides that in the event of a notification under section 3 of the Act, every proceeding for correction of records and every suit and proceeding in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land lying in the area shall on an order being passed in that behalf by the Court of authority before whom such suit or proceeding is pending shall stand abated section 7 envisages constitution of village advisory committee and section 8 requires preparation of up to date record of rights before consolidate on Section 8A to which a reference has been made by the Deputy director, consolidation provides for partition of joint holdings by the Consolidation Officer either on an application made in that behalf or on his won motion Such a partition of joint holdings has to be effected on the basis of shares. Section 9 of the Act, relates in preparation of register of lands. Then section 9A deals with preparation of settlement of principles. Section 10 envisgages publication of registered of lands and statement of principles and objection thereon. Section 9 of the Act, relates in preparation of register of lands. Then section 9A deals with preparation of settlement of principles. Section 10 envisgages publication of registered of lands and statement of principles and objection thereon. The relevant portion of section 10 is reproduced hereunder :- “(1) The registers prepared under sub-section (2) of section 9 and the statement of principles prepared under section 9A shall be published in the manner prescribed and shall remain published for not less than 30 days. (2) Any person may, within 45 days of the date of publication of the register under sub-section (1) file before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, objection in respect thereof, disputing the correctness and nature of entries in the records or in the statement of Principles. (3) The Assistant Consolidation Officer shall, after hearing the person interested and after such enquiries as may be necessary, decided the objection, settle the disputes or correct the mistakes, as far as may be by way of compromise between the parties appearing be4fre him and pass orders on the basis of such compromise. (4) All cases which are not disposed of by the Assistant Consolidation Officer under sub-section (3) all cases relating to valuation of plots and all cases relating to valuation of structures, tree, bamboo-clumps well or other improvements for calculating, the amount thereof, and its apportionment amongst co-owners, if there be more owners than one, shall be forwarded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer to the Consolidation Officer who shall dispose of the same in the manner prescribed. (5) Where objections have been filed against the statement of principles under sub-section (3) of section 10, the Assistant Consolidation Officer after affording opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned and after taking into consideration the view of the village Advisory Committee, shall dispose of the objections in the manner prescribed.” Section 11 provides for preparation of draft scheme. A draft scheme for consolidation of holdings has to be prepared as soon as may be, after the objections, if any, under section 10(2) have been disposed of section 12 requires publication of draft scheme and section 12A relates to disposal of objections. According to section 17A a raiyat shall have the same right in the lands allotted to him in pursuance of the scheme of consolidation as he had in his original holding. According to section 17A a raiyat shall have the same right in the lands allotted to him in pursuance of the scheme of consolidation as he had in his original holding. Ultimately the consolidation operations come to a close as provided under section 26A which provides that as soon as may be after fresh maps and records have been issued to the raiyats under the scheme the State Government shall issue notification in the official Gazette stating that the consolidation operations have been closed in the unit. Section 36 provides that except as provided in this Act, appeal or revision shall lie from any order passed under this Act. Section 37 bars the Civil Courts to entertain any suit or application to very or set aside any decision or order given on passed under this Act, with respect to any other matter for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken this Act. Section 37A provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force the officers acting under the provisions of the Act, shall be deemed to be courts of competent jurisdiction while hearing objections or appeals or deciding disputes under this Act. They are vested with powers rights and privileges while hearing any matter in dispute as are vested in the Civil Courts in respect of certain matters. 7. I have extracted some of the relevant provisions of this only with the purpose to show that this laws has only brought about changes in the procedure from a lathergic a quick-acting one. But the question regarding determination of the have been left to the consolidation courts. There is no dispute over this. In fact, in the case of ram Krit Singh Vs. The State of Bihar it was urged before a special Bench that the Consolidation Officers had no judicial training and were ill equipped to decide the question of title, which requires consideration of intricate questions of facts and law. On this ground the vires of the Act, was challenged. But the special Bench held that the law did not suffer from vice of discrimination merely because a special forum had been created to determine the rights of the parties. On this ground the vires of the Act, was challenged. But the special Bench held that the law did not suffer from vice of discrimination merely because a special forum had been created to determine the rights of the parties. It was held that in order to achieve the objects of the legislation the Lagislature in its wisdom and experience thought that even the question of title should be decided by the authorities under the Act. From the provisions contained in Section 10 is very clear that the Consolidation Officer after hearing the persons interested and after such enquiries as may be necessary, decide the objection, settle the disputes or correct the mistakes” first by way objections have been field against the statement of principles under section 10(2) of the Act, the Consolidation Officer after affording opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned and after taking into consideration the view of the Village Advisory Committee, shall submit his report to the Consolidation Officer who shall dispose of the objection in the manner prescribe. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf case the Consolidation Officer has not decided the dispute at all. From the order passed by the Consolidation Officer in Annexure-1, which has been quoted above, it is apparent that the Consolidation Officer has failed to exercise his jurisdiction and has not made any effort to settle the dispute between the parties. 9. According to the Oxford English Dictionary Vol. III the word “decision” means A(1) the action of deciding (a) contest, controversy, question); settlement, determination (b) the final and definite result of examining a question; a conclusion, judgment : one formally pronounced in court of law. 9. According to the Oxford English Dictionary Vol. III the word “decision” means A(1) the action of deciding (a) contest, controversy, question); settlement, determination (b) the final and definite result of examining a question; a conclusion, judgment : one formally pronounced in court of law. (2) The making up or one’s mind on any point or en a course of action; a resolution, determination in the case of M/S Mahabit other’s it was observed by Snah, J. as follows :- “ Opportunity to party interested in the dispute to present his case on questions of law as well as fact, ascertainment of facts from materials before the Tribunal after disclosing the materials to the party against whom it is intended to use them, and adjudication by a reasoned judgment upon a finding of the facts in controvery and application of the law to the facts found are attributes of even a quasi-judicial determination-It must appear not merely that the entrusted with quashi judicial authority has reached a conclusion on the problem before him : it must appear that he has reached conclusion which is according to law and just, and for ensuring that end he must record the ultimate mental process leading from the dispute to its solution. Satisfactory decision of a disputed claim may be reached only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that appeal to the authority. Recording of reasons in support of decision on a disputed claim by a quasi judicial authority ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not the result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on grounds of policy or expedience. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the authority has rejected his claim. If the order is subject to appeal, the necessity to record reasons is greater, for without recorded reason the appellate authority has no material on which it may determine whether the facts were properly ascertained, the relevant law was correctly applied and the decision was just.” The authorities under the Act, who have been vested with powers to settle the questions regarding title and other disputes and who have replaced the Civil Courts are judicial authority and must record reason in support of a decision on any disputed claim. From the order passed by the Consolidation Officer in Annexure-1 it will appear that he has not acted in the manner in which a judicial authority is required to act. He has not decided the dispute between the parties and has failed to apply his mind. The order in most perfunctory. The order being subject to appeal the necessity to record reasons was greater. The said order has got to be set aside. 10. So far the order passed by the appellate authority in Annexure-2 is concerned it must be said that the appellate authority has also failed to decide the issues involved in the case. After having found that there was no partition in the family in the year 1930, which was the case of respondent no.6, there could be no reasons for holding that the partition might have take4n place between the year 1954 and 1969 inasmuch as it was nobody’s case. In any event he was not only to partition the joint holdings as envisaged under section 8A of the Act, but was also required to decided the question regarding the respective title of the parties in respect of the other holdings recorded in separate names. In a case of this nature the Consolidation authorities are required to decided whether there was an earlier partition and if the conclusion is that there was no earlier partition and the family remained joint then to decide whether any holding recorded in the name of an individual member of the family was a joint family person. Neither the appellate nor the revisional authorities have tried to decide the present dispute in this manner. The appellate and the revisinal orders contained in Annexure 2 and 3 are, therefore, fit to be quashed and set aside. 11. The result is that this application succeeds and the orders contained in Annexure 1, 2 and 3 are quashed. The matter is sent back to the consolidation Officer, respondent no.2 to consider the entire matter afresh after hearing the parties and affording them reasonable opportunities to lead further evidence, if necessary, in the light of the observations made above. There shall be no order as to costs. Application allowed.