Judgment 1. The present writ application has been filed for quashing the order dt. 12-10-1987 passed by the Joint Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna, Respondent-2 (Annexure-8) dismissing Revision case No. 2393 of 86 and the order dt. 5-7-1986 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Vaishali at Hajipur, Respondent-3 (Annexure-6) dismissing the appeal bearing Appeal No. 11 of 1986-87 and the order dt. 13-5-1984 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur respondent No. 4 in Objection Case No. 1370 of 1983 (Annexure-3). 2. One Udit Narayan Singh had three sons namely Yadubansh Singh, Ragho Prasad Singh and Ram Kailash Prasad Singh, Ragho Prasad Singh died issueless. Yadubansh Singh had one son namely Ram Prasad Singh who is the petitioner in the present writ application Ram Kailash Prasad Singh died leaving behind his widow Sunaina Kuer and a minor son Mukesh Prasad Singh who are respondents Nos. 5 and 6 respectively in the present writ application. As stated above, Yadubansh Singh and Ram Kailash Prasad Singh were the two surviving sons of Udit Narayan Singh and they formed a joint family according to the Mitakshara Law and came into joint possession of the ancestral as well as the properties acquired from the joint family funds. The further case of the petitioner is that Yadubansh Singh father of the petitioner was a Class IV employee of the High Court and he retired some time in the year 1966 and lived in Patna along with the petitioner and other members of the family. Ram Kailash Prasad Singh the uncle of the petitioner and the husband and father of the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 respectivley was staying at his native place and was looking after the joint family properties. It has further been submitted that during the last revisional survey, Kailash Prasad Singh got lands of Khata No. 754 measuring 3 acres 30 decimals recorded in his name without any information to the petitioner. It has further been submitted that in 1976 Ram Kailash Prasad Singh taking advantage of the survey entry, started creating disturbance and as such, the father of the petitioner and the petitioner filed a partition suit in the Court of Sub-Judge, Hajipur, which was numbered as Partition Suit No. 13 of 1977. The partition suit was decreed ex parte in favour of the petitioner with respect to half share. The respondents Nos. The partition suit was decreed ex parte in favour of the petitioner with respect to half share. The respondents Nos. 5 and 6 filed an application under O. IX, R. 13 of the Civil P.C. on which Misc. Case No 13/79 was started 7/ 81 but the same was subsequently, dismissed by order dt. 22-9-1981 against which Misc. Appeal No. 279 of 1981 is pending in this Court. 3. Subsequently, Yadubansh Singh, the father of the petitioner and Ram Kailash Prasad Singh died in course of time. When the consolidation proceeding was started, respondents Nos. 5 and 6 filed a petition for recording their names in place of Ram Kailash Prasad Singh. The petitioner came to know of the aforesaid facts and filed an objecton before the Consolidation Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur, respondent 4 but the said respondent, by order dt. 13-5-1984 without considering the objection of the petitioner recorded the name of respondents 5 and 6 in place of Ram Kailash Prasad Singh, vide Annexure-3 to this writ petition. The petitioner being aggrieved by order dt. 13-5-1984 (Annexure-3) filed appeal before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hajipur but the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the said appeal by order dt. 5-7-1986 (Annexure-6). A revision petition was filed against the aforesaid order in the Court of Joint Director, Consolidation, Bihar Patna but the same was also dismissed by order dt. 12-10-1987 vide Annexure-8 to the writ petition. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 in which it has been stated that the abovementioned lands are self-acquired properties of Ram Kailash Prasad Singh. It has been stated that Ram Kailash Prasad Singh was also a Government servant and the abovementioned properties were acquired from the savings derived from his salaries and was not purchased from the joint family funds. It has been stated that the father of the petitioner who was also in service, had acquired land in Patna on which a house has been constructed and that house is being claimed as self-acquired property of the petitioner. Respondents have further submitted that during the revisional survey operation, no objection was ever raised by the petitioner or any member of his joint family against the entry of Khata No. 754 in the name of Ram Kailash Prasad Singh. Respondents have further submitted that during the revisional survey operation, no objection was ever raised by the petitioner or any member of his joint family against the entry of Khata No. 754 in the name of Ram Kailash Prasad Singh. It has further been submitted that even after the death of Ram Kailash Prasad Singh, the Consolidation Officer, after making spot enquiry, found respondents Nos. 5 and 6 in possession of the land in question and as such passed order by substituting the name of respondent No. 5 in place of Ram Kailash Prasad Singh. It has been stated that Ram Kailash Prasad Singh was in service of Public Works Department and as such question of his looking after the joint family property does not arise. 5. The petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Kalka Kuer alias Kalka Singh V/s. State of Bihar, reported in 1989 PLJR 1203 in which it has been laid down as follows "103. Coming to the facts of this case, I find that there is little controversy as to the question that the petitioner has raised. The consolidation authorities could not finally decide as to whether a Civil Court decree was valid or not. In this view of the matter, the consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to pass an order contrary to or inconsistent with a Civil Courts decree which has not been set aside by a higher Court. The parties challenging a Civil Court decree must, therefore, approach Civil Court itself, if it is permissible in law to get a declaration that the decree passed in the earlier suit was not binding upon him. In this view of the matter, the impugned orders passed by the consolidation authorities must be quashed. In view of the law enunciated in the above judgment, learned counsel for the respondents also do not have any objection if the case is remanded back to the Consolidation Officer, Hajipur, respondent No. 4 for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case Annexures 3, 6 and 8 passed by respondent No. 4 Consolidation Officer, Hajipur respondent No. 3. The Deputy Director of Consoldiation, Vaishali at Hajipur and respondent No. 2. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case Annexures 3, 6 and 8 passed by respondent No. 4 Consolidation Officer, Hajipur respondent No. 3. The Deputy Director of Consoldiation, Vaishali at Hajipur and respondent No. 2. The Joint Director, Consolidation, Bihar Patna are hereby quashed and the case is remitted back to respondent No. 4 Consolidation Officer, Hajipur for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after taking into consideration the law as enunciated in the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 1989 PLJR 1203. 7. In the result, this writ application succeeds but the party shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed.