Judgment Binod Kumar Roy, J. 1. The petitioners have come up to this court praying to quash the Revisional Order dated 17th of March, 1983 passed under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to asthe Act) in Revision case No.220 of 1977 by the Joint Director of Consolidation (Headquarters), Patna (Respondent No.11)as contained in Annexure-6 to this writ application. 2. In view of the solitary submission made by Mr. Prasad at the Bar that the Revision, in view of the Remand Order passed by this Court ought to have been heard and disposed of by Respondent No.12 the Director of consolidation, it is not necessary to state facts in detail. 3. It appears that the husband of petitioner No.1, Dwariki Prasad, and others came up before this court in C. W. J. C. No.313 of 1978 assailing the revisional order passed by the then Director of Consolidation (Respondent no.12) as contained in Annexure-4 of that writ application. The said writ application was heard and finally allowed by a judgment and order dated 7th january, 1980, as contained in Annexure-5 to this writ application. By the said order the case was remitted back to the Direct or of Consolidation, Bihar with a direction to hold personal inspection of the disputed land, for fresh hearing and decision after issuing notices to all parties. This court, in its judgment, also observed that if the entire area measuring 2.86 Acres of Plot no.1124 appertaining to Khata No.288 of village Kosiawan contains tank, then the whole area has to be excluded from the purview of the proceedings. 4. It further appears that after the remand the records of the Revision were transferred to the Joint Director of Consolidation (Headquarters), Patna, for disposal, who made a local inspection in terms of the direction of this court and passed a judgment as contained in Annexure-6 after issuing notices and hearing all parties. 5. Mr. Rajendra Kishore Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that since the case was remitted back to the Director of consolidation, Bihar (Respondent No.12), the Joint Director of Consolidation, bihar (Respondent No.11) has erred in hearing and disposing of the revision application and thus his order, as contained in Annexure-6, is liable to be quashed. 6. Mr. 5. Mr. Rajendra Kishore Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that since the case was remitted back to the Director of consolidation, Bihar (Respondent No.12), the Joint Director of Consolidation, bihar (Respondent No.11) has erred in hearing and disposing of the revision application and thus his order, as contained in Annexure-6, is liable to be quashed. 6. Mr. Ram Suhawan Singh, learned counsel appearing for Respondent nos.1 to 9, on the other hand, contends that the revision application having been transferred to the Joint Director of Consolidation, Bihar, who is vested with the powers of the Director of Consolidation within the meaning of the act, no illegality much less any irregularity was committed by him in hear-ing and disposing of the revision application after complying with the direction of this court. He next submitted that no objection whatsoever was even taken by the petitioners before Respondent No.11 about his competency to hear and dispose of the revision application and it is not permissible for the petitioners to raise any objection in writ jurisdiction after they have taken a chance of judgment in their favour and, accordingly, the writ application is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. The word "director of Consolidation" has been defined in Sec.2 (4) of the Act which runs as follows : "2 (4) director of Consolidation means the Officer appointed as such by the State Government to exercise the powers and performs the duties of Director of Consolidation under this Act or the rules made thereunder and shall include an Additional Director of consolidation and a Joint Director of Consolidation," (Emphasis added ). " 8. Section 34 (2) of the Act runs as follows : "34 (2) The Director of Consolidation may, with the sanction of the state Government, delegate any of his powers or functions under this Act to any officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector. " 9. Rule 26 (2) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings Rules runs as follows : "26 (2) The officer before whom appeals, revisions or references under the provisions of the Act or these Rules are instituted may transfer any case instituted or pending before him to any other officer empowered to hear and decide such case or recall any case pending before any other officer from the file of that officer to his own file. " 10. " 10. It has not been disputed by Mr. Prasad that the Joint Director of consolidation Respondent No.11, was not vested with the powers of the director of Consolidation under Sec.35 of the Act. It was also not disputed that the revision application was not transferred before him for its disposal. 11. In the aforementioned view of the matter, I am of the view that no illegality whatsoever was committed by Respondent No.11, to whom the revision application was transferred for its disposal, in disposing of the same after complying with the directions of this court. Thus, I do not find any merit in the submission of Mr. Prasad. 12. It is also clear that the petitioners at no point of time objected to the jurisdiction of Respondent No.11 to dispose of the revision application rather they took a chance of his judgment in their favour. The Supreme court in M/s. Tikaram and Sons Ltd. etc. V/s. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, u. P. , AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1286 at 1292 laid down as follows : "in other words, it must be taken that the appellants had voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the Revisional Authority and of the high Court on the matter in issue and having submitted to the jurisdiction and having taken the chance of judgment in its favour, it is not right that the appellants should take exception to the jurisdiction of the High Court when the judgment has gone against it. We cannot therefore permit the appellants to canvass in this court for the first time the question whether it was competent for the high Court to decide the question of law referred to it under section 11 of the Act. We accordingly reject the argument of the appellants on this aspect of the case. " The petitioners herein also having taken a chance of a judgment from the joint Director of Consolidation, who, in my view, never laked jurisdiction inherently to decide the revision application, I am of the view that they cannot be allowed to take exception to his jurisdiction when the judgment has gone against them. 13. This apart in Reg V/s. Home Secretary of the House of Lords, Lord bridge of Harwich (with whom others agreed) (1989) 3 Weekly Law Reports 1294 at 1304 in relation to the scope of a writ of certiorari observed as follows : ". . 13. This apart in Reg V/s. Home Secretary of the House of Lords, Lord bridge of Harwich (with whom others agreed) (1989) 3 Weekly Law Reports 1294 at 1304 in relation to the scope of a writ of certiorari observed as follows : ". . . . . . if once unfairness suffered by one party to a dispute in consequence of some failure by his own advisers in relation to the conduct of the relevant proceedings was admitted as a ground on which the High Court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction over inferior tribunals could quash the relevant decision, I can discern no principle which could be involved to distinguish between a "fundamental unfairness". Which would justify the exercise of the jurisdiction, and a less than fundamental unfairness, which would not. Indeed, Sir Charles Pletcher Cooke was constrained to rest on the proposition that in the last analysis, it was all a matter of discretion and the court could be trusted only to exercise its discretion in extreme cases where justice demand a remedy. " 14. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 is discretionary and the petitioners cannot claim it as a matter of right. 15. Thus I do not find any merit in this writ application and it is, accordingly, dismissed but, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, without cost. Writ application dismissed.