Judgment S. K. Singh, J. 1. In the present writ petition, petitioners have assailed the order dated 12-2-1983 passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation (Muzaffarpur), Patna, in Case, no.386 of 1979 by which Joint Director of consolidation has refused to exercise his jurisdiction under section 35 of the bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (Hereinafter to be referred to as the Act ). Said order is appended as annexure-5 to the writ petition. Further prayer has also been made for quashing the orders contained in Annexure-1 and 3. Petitioners have further prayed for consequential reliefs thereto. 2. The dispute relates to land bearing R. S Plot no.479 having an area of 41 (sic) decimals situated in village Pilkhi Gajpatti in the the district of Muzaffarpur. 3. Petitioners case is that the said land is their homestead land over which their residential house is situated. During the course of survey settlement operation undertaken in Sakra Moraul Block, purchas were issued. From the said purchas, it appears that the area of the land in question was recorded as 35 decimals instead of 45 decimals. Said revisional survey plot comprises of cadestral survey plots 733 (part) 734, 736, 737, 738 and 745 (part ). 4. Accordingly, petitioners, within time filed objection under section 103a of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter to be referred to B. T. Act)- It has been stated that the rest area of the said plot which was towards eastern side was wrongly included in the area of revisional survey plot nos.474 and 478 belonging to Respondent nos.4 and 5. After a lapse of nearly 3 years amin and kanungo were directed by the Consolidation Officer to inquire into the matter and report. Inquiries were also made by the Consolidation officer himself. Thereafter for nearly 6 years nothing was done and the matter remained pending. On 2-9-1972 the Consolidation Officer passed an order to the effect that the order passed by him in Consolidation case no.16 under section 103a of the B. T. Act would also apply in the instant case. A copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure-1. Thereafter for nearly 6 years nothing was done and the matter remained pending. On 2-9-1972 the Consolidation Officer passed an order to the effect that the order passed by him in Consolidation case no.16 under section 103a of the B. T. Act would also apply in the instant case. A copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure-1. In the said order, Consolidation Officer passed Order on 1-9-1972 by which he declined to pass any order on the ground that as all actions upto the stage of section 13 (1) (as it then existed) of the Act, having been over, he was not of the Act, having been over, he was not competent to pass any order on the objection filed under section 103a of the B. T, Act. Accordingly, he referred both the cases to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for necessary action. , copy of the said order is Annexure-1/1 to this petition. 5. It has further been stated by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that inspite of the fact that considerable time had already been consumed by the authorities in passiug orders on the said objection filed by the petitioners, still, the Deputy Director of consolidation did not think it proper to pass any order for a considerable period. He also kept the matter pending for another four years. Deputpy Director of Consolidation directed the Amin to make a fresh inquiry and accordingly, bis inquiry report was submitted on 15-2-1977. Thereafter, Deputy Director by his order dated 3-3-1978 (Annexure-3) decided that since section 103a of the B. T. Act was amended on 30-4-1971, no action could be taken under section 103a of the b. T. Act. 6. Aggrieved by order dated 3-3-1978, the petitioners moved the director of Consolidation, in revision which was heard by Joint Director who by his order dated 12-2-1983, vide Annexure-5, declined to decide the matter on merit on the ground that the said village had already been denotified under the Act. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the Joint director, Consolidation has committed an error of record in holding that the village had been denotified. To support his contention he has drawn my attention to the statements made in paragraphs-20 and 21 and also annexure-6 to the present writ petition. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the Joint director, Consolidation has committed an error of record in holding that the village had been denotified. To support his contention he has drawn my attention to the statements made in paragraphs-20 and 21 and also annexure-6 to the present writ petition. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent nos 4 and 5 has contended that the consolidation scheme of the village was finally confirmed on 26-3-1975 under section 13 of the Act vide letter no.1108 issued from the office of the Deputy Director. Consolidation, Muzaffarpur and communicated to the Director, Consolidation for effecting notification under section 26 of the Act. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondents in which it has been stated that the writ petition is not maintainable and the remedy for the petitioners is before the Civil court. 9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as private respondents at length and have perused the entire pleadings. Although from the averments made in the counter affidavit and the statements made at Bar, it appears that denotification of the village in question was made under section 26a of the Act but from the order passed by the director on 23-2-1981 (Annexure-6 , ft is manifest that the Director, Consolidation had stayed the order of denotification of the said village until disposal of the revision application. In the impugned order dated 12-2-1983 (Annexure 5) Director, Consolidation has recorded the fact that because of delay in the disposal of the objection of the petitioners, same has become futile. 10. It is well settled that a party cannot be made to suffer for the mistake on the part of the court. The instant case is a gross example of the negligence, laches and mistake committed on the part of the concerned authorities. Petitioners had filed their objection on 21-12-1963 in itself and the same was kept pending for couple of the years and in the meantime, notification under Sec.26a of the Act was made inspite of an order of stay passed by the Director Consolidation. As such, the main question is as to for what fault on the part of the petitioners, they should be made to suffer though concerned respondent authorities are responsible for such negligence and laches and are answerable for the same. As such, the main question is as to for what fault on the part of the petitioners, they should be made to suffer though concerned respondent authorities are responsible for such negligence and laches and are answerable for the same. The least that can be said is that the action on their part is unfortunate. 11. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents that after denotification of the village under Sec.26a of the Act, only remedy left to the petitioners was to move the civil court is not well founded in view of the fact that objection of the petitioners remained pending before the Consolidation authorities for several years without any laches or fault on the part of the petitioners. As such, the right of the petitioners cannot be allowed to be frustrated for the fault on the part of the concerned authorities and specially when the denotification of the village had been stayed by Annexure 6. 12. In the result, the order dated 12-2-83 passed by Joint Director of Consolidation as contained in Annexure 5 is quashed and the matter is remanded back to respondent No.2, Deputy Director of Consolidation who will decide the matter afresh on merits and in accordance with law within six months from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of this order. I will like to make it very clear that I have not expressed any opinion with regard to merit of the case and the observations made, will in no way prejudice the case of either parties. Petitioners as well as respondent 5 will be at liberty to raise all the points available to them before the Director, consolidation, who will after considering the same pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 13. This writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above but there shall be no order as to cost. Writ application allowed.