JUDGMENT S. Ali Ahmad, J. The prayer in this application is to quash the orders as contained in Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ application. Annexure 1 is the order dated 22.1.1976 passed by respondent no. 3 in Case No. 51 of 1975-76 whereas Annexure 2 is an order dated 21.8.1980 passed by the Director of Consolidation, Bihar (respondent no. 2) in Revision Case no. 747 of 1977. 2. In order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, some facts may have to be taken note of. They are as follows :- Plot no 820 under Old Khata no. 17 measured 48 decimals. This plot was recorded in the name of Mahesh Tiwary and Beni Madhav Tiwary having one share and Ganesh Tiwary son of Jasoda Tiwary having one share. During the last survey, this plot was split up into two plots which were numbered as plot no. 960 (21 decimals under Khata no. 107) and Plot no. 942 (28 decimals under Khata no. 720). According to the petitioner Ganesh Tiwary had two brothers, Mukhi Tiwary and Brahma Tiwary. It is said that Ganesh Tiwary and Mukhi Tiwary died issueless and Brahma Tiwary alone remained in the branch of Jasoda Tiwary. The petitioner says that no 30th November, 1950, Brahma Tiwary sold his half share in Plot no 830 to one Khaderan Tiwary by a registered sale deed and thereafter Khaderan Tiwary came in possession of the said land from whom the petitioner purchased in the name of his wife the aforesaid 24 decimals by a registered sale deed dated 3rd July, 1973. The petitioner claims that after this sale he, along with his wife, is in possession of the land in question. The grievance, however, of the petitioner is that during the recent survey respondent no 4 got the name of his family members recorded with regard to the entire land of Plot no. 820 which included the land purchased by the petitioner. He says that be filed an objection along with relevant document before the Consolidation Officer but the Consolidation Officer rejected the objection by his order dated 11.2.1974. At that time the orders Passed under section 10 (3) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act (for short the Act) were not final. He says that be filed an objection along with relevant document before the Consolidation Officer but the Consolidation Officer rejected the objection by his order dated 11.2.1974. At that time the orders Passed under section 10 (3) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act (for short the Act) were not final. He, therefore, filed Title Suit No. 108 of 1974 in the court of the, Munsif, Arrah for declaration of his title and possession over Plot no. 900 measuring 21 decimals. It is said that when the consolidation proceeding was at the stage of section 12 of the Act an objection was flied by the petitioner before the authority praying to record his name with respect to the land in question. The prayer was rejected by respondent no. 3 by his order dated 22.1.1976 (Annexure 1) saying that the matter will be considered after a decision regarding title was given by the civil court in Title Suit No. 108 of 1974. In the mean time amendments had come into force under the Act. Taking advantage of those amendments an application under section 4 (c) of the Act was filed by respondent no. 4 in the title suit praying to hold that the suit had abated under the Act. The learned Munsif by his order dated 11th July, 1977 held that the suit stood abated by virtue of section 4 (c) of the Act. Thereupon the petitioner filed an application in revision under section 35 of the Act. The Director by his order dated 21.8.1980 (Annexure 2) rejected the claim of the petitioner. 3. Mr. Nagendra Roy learned counsel for the petitioner says that the Director failed to exercise his jurisdiction as he was of the view that the dispute between the parties had already been decided on an objection filed under section 10 (2) of the Act and that he had no jurisdiction to interfere at this stage. Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 very rightly in view of the decision in the case of Shyam Bihari Upadhaya v. The State of Bihar (1985 BBCJ 174 : 1985 PLJR 43 ) does not say that the Director had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 35 of the Act. He, however, says that alternatively tile Director had considered the matter on merit also and had held that the petitioner had no case. He, however, says that alternatively tile Director had considered the matter on merit also and had held that the petitioner had no case. I have perused the order as contained in Annexure 2 the order passed by the Director, Consolidation Paragraphs nos. 1 to 4 mention the respective cases of the parties. In the first part of paragraph no. 5, it has been mentioned that the application is not maintainable and practically without any consideration of the case on merit the Director has found that the petitioner has failed to make out his case. I am not at all impressed by the order. Firstly respondent no. 3 had refused to consider the case of the petitioner on the ground that it will be taken up after the decision in the civil suit. When the civil suit abated then the case should have been investigated more seriously. That was not done by respondent no. 3. The Director, respondent no. 2, also did not do that. For these reasons, I feel that the order as contained in Annexure 2 cannot be sustained. I accordingly allow the application, quash the order as contained in Annexure 2 and remit the case to him for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Parties will bear their own costs. S.S. Sondhawalia, C.J. - I agree.