Judgment Binod Kumar Roy, J. 1. The petitioner assails different orders passed by the different authorities as contained in Annexures-1, 2 and 3, under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the act, Annexure-1 is the revisional order which is a two line order. "the petitioner was earlier heard. It is dismissed. The submissions : - 2. Mr. Khalil, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisional order is absolutely perverse and misconceived and contrary to the well settled principle of law that a final court of fact, after admission of a revision petition, has to give reasons. He further submits that in view of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988, which is retroactive in operation, the consolidation authority lacked jurisdiction to declare the sale deeds, through which the petitioner derived title, as farzi. 3. Mr. Abdus Salam, learned counsel points out that earlier he had entered appearance for respondent No.5 but after his death and substitution of his legal representatives he was not given any vakalatnama and thus he is handicapped to argue. He, however, requests that in the interest of justice he be heard in the matter. He submits that it is difficult to gave any valid answer to the first submission of Mr. Khalil but to the second submission he submits that this question be left open to be decided by the authorities concerned. My Findings j - 4. The revisional order (as contained in Annexure-1) gives an unfortunate reflection. No reason has been assigned at all while dismissing the revision application which appears to have been heard more than once. The Joint Director, Consolidation was the final court of fact. It is a settled law that a quasi-judicial authority must give reasons to support its order. That not having been done, it is liable to be set aside. 5. So far as the second submission of Mr. Khalil is concerned I leave it to be decided by the authority itself. 6. For the reasons aforementioned this writ application succeeds in part. That not having been done, it is liable to be set aside. 5. So far as the second submission of Mr. Khalil is concerned I leave it to be decided by the authority itself. 6. For the reasons aforementioned this writ application succeeds in part. The impugned order, as contained in Annexure-1, is set aside and the case is remitted back to the Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna (Respondent No.2) who shall either hear the revision application or transfer it to some other court, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner as well as to the legal representatives of the deceased-respondent no.5, Md. Aslam, Md. Akram, Md. Akbar and Md. Ashgar all sons of abdul Hamid resident of village Belbhadrapur P. S. Ojiarpur district samastipur. As the legal representatives have not chosen to contest I make no order as to cost. Let a writ of certiorari issue accordingly. Writ application succeeds port.