JUDGMENT S. J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 23rd March 1984 passed in Revision Case No. 1929 of 1981, as contained in Annexure-8. By the aforesaid order, the revisional authority, in terms of Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (Consolidation Act for short), has set aside the appellate order dated 10th June 1980 passed by the respondent no. 3 and has confirmed the order dated 16th November 1978 which was originally passed by the Consolidation Officer. 2. The main dispute in the instant case is as to whether Ram Krit is son of Hukum Singh and/or RamKrit is son of Raghu Nath. Further whether in the genealogical table, which is both common with respect to the petitioner and the respondents, is there any person named as Hukum Singh or not? 3. Admittedly, the land in question originally belongs to one sadhu Singh, father of Ugra Singh. The detailed area of disputed land in question is 18 acres and 20 decimals situated in village Auni, P. S, Budar in the district of Bhojpur, now the new district of Buxar, The details of the lands have been mentioned paragraph no. 6 of the writ petition which is not in dispute, 4. It seems that when the consolidation proceeding was initiated, the land register was published under Section 10 (1) of the Act on 25th April 1973. Admittedly, no objection was filed by any person against the same within the stipulated period. The respondent Nos. 6 and 7 filed a petition under Section 10 (b) of the Act with a claim that they are entitled for 1/3rd share out of the total land in question and thereby requested to give such share in their favour. The same was numbered as Objection Cass No. 66 of 1978-79. The admitted fact is that the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 6 to 9, they are cognates. The petitioner also accepts that the respondent nos. 6 to 9, are entitled for a share in the land in question. But according to the petitioner, while the petitioner is entitled for 50 percent share in the land in question, respondent nos. 6 with 7 jointly are entitled for 25 percent share and respondent nos. 8 with 9 are entitled for rest 25 percent share, Partition, if any, may be made in the aforesaid fashion. But according to the petitioner, while the petitioner is entitled for 50 percent share in the land in question, respondent nos. 6 with 7 jointly are entitled for 25 percent share and respondent nos. 8 with 9 are entitled for rest 25 percent share, Partition, if any, may be made in the aforesaid fashion. It has already been stated according to the respondents, respondent nos. 6 and 7 jointly claims share of 1/3rd. Further according to the said respondents, respondent nos. 8 and 9 are also jointly entitled for 1/3rd share and the petitioner is entitled for 1/3rd share. 5. The Genealogical Table which was initially shown by the respondent's while first amendment petition was filed, was same anti similar to the Genealogical Table as shown by the petitioner. Subsequently, by filing a second amendment petition before the Consolidation Officer, the respondents sought for an amendment and gave different Genealogical Table. There being now two different Genealogical Tables, one submitted by the petitioner anti the other by the respondents, the dispute arose as to which one of them is the correct one. If the Genealogical Table given by the petitioner is accepted, then the petitioner is entitled for 50 percent share and the respondents are entitled for rest 50 percent i.e. 25% and 25% each. On the other hand, if the Genealogical Table subsequently submitted by the respondents is accepted, then as claimed by the respondents, 1/3rd share will be given in favour of petitioner and 2/3rd share will be decided in between the respondents having 1/3rd each set. The difference in the G.T. cropped like this. While the petitioner has shown Ram Krit as son of one Hukum Singh, the respondents have shown him by their second amendment as son of Reghunath. In the second amendment petition that has been filed by the respondents in the G. T., the name of Hukum Singh is not at all figuring therein. While the petitioner has shown Ram Krit as son of one Hukum Singh, the respondents have shown him by their second amendment as son of Reghunath. In the second amendment petition that has been filed by the respondents in the G. T., the name of Hukum Singh is not at all figuring therein. For proper appreciation of the case, all the three sets of Genealogical Tables, as submitted by the parties, before the Consolidation Officer, are given hereunder : (a) Genealogical Table as submitted by the petitioner: Ugrah Singh Sheo Mohan Singh Deo Singh Raghunath Singh Hukum Singh Lalji Ram Krit Chandrika Singh (Petitioner) Ujagir Ram Sashi Ram Achari Dhanpati Singh Sudama Singh Mado (R-8) (R-9) Rameshwar Singh Sumeshwar Singh (R-6) (R- 7) (b) Genealogical Table, as given by the Respondents 1st amendment petition : Same as given by the petitioner, above. (e) Genealogical Table given by the respondents by second amendment. Sadhu Singh (dead) Ugrah (dead) Raghu Nath (dead) Sheo Mohan (died Deo (died issueless) issueless) (1) Ujagir (dead) (2) Ramdhari (died (3) Ramsakhi (4) Lalji (died issueless) issueless) (5) Ramayan (dead) Rameshwar (R-6) Sumeshwar (R- 7) Dhanpat (R-8) Rudama (R-9) Ramkrit Chandnka (Writ Petitioner) 6. The Consolidation Officer heard the parties. Both the parties led different evidences therein to justify that the Genealogical Table given by the respective party, is the correct one. The Consolidation Officer allowed the second amendment petition which was filed by the respondents and accepted their G.T. and passed the order dated 16th November 1978 in favour of respondents, holding that the petitioner and both sets of respondents are entitled for 1/3rd share each. 7. In this back-ground, the petitioner filed appeal petition before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 10th June 1980 (Annexure-6) set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer and remitted the matter. While remitting the case, it was transferred from the court of Consolidation Officer, Buxar to the Consolidation Officer, Simri. The order of the Deputy Director is at Annexure-6. The Consolidation Officer thereafter heard the parties and by order dated 10th May 1981 (Annexure-7) refused to pass any order on the ground that the villages have been confirmed after consolidation proceeding. The respondents thereafter filed a petition under Section 35 of the Act before the Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna. The order of the Deputy Director is at Annexure-6. The Consolidation Officer thereafter heard the parties and by order dated 10th May 1981 (Annexure-7) refused to pass any order on the ground that the villages have been confirmed after consolidation proceeding. The respondents thereafter filed a petition under Section 35 of the Act before the Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna. The said respondent by the impugned order dated 23rd March 1984 allowed the revision application No. 1929 of 1981 vide Annexure-8. While the finding was given in favour of respondents accepting their Genealogical Table and thereby giving 1/3rd share each in favour of petitioners and two sets of respondents, he confirmed the initial order which was passed by the respondent Consolidation Officer on 16th November 1978 (Annexurc-5). 8. Counsel for the petitioner raised various points. The main points are stated hereunder :- (a) The petition which was filed by the respondents under Section 10(8) of the Act was barred under Section 10(A) of the Consolidation Act; (b) The objection having not been filed by the respondents within, the stipulated period of 45 days under Section 10(3) of the Act, the proceeding became final. Thereafter it was not open to the respondent Consolidation Officer to give any finding in favour of respondents as has been given by the impugned order dated 16th November 1978 Annexure-5); (c) The petition under Section 35 of the Act which was filed by the respondents before the Director of Consolidation was not maintainable, having not been filed straightway under Section 35 of the Act, but having filed against the order of Consolidation Officer; as contained in Annexure-7, that too, without moving before the appellate authority; (d) The order of Consolidation Officer dated 16th November 1978 (Annexure-5), being completely without jurisdiction, the respondent Director of Consolidation could not have confirmed the said illegal order, though he could have applied his mind independently to decide the issue, if a petition under Section 35 of the Act had been filed by the respondents straightway; and, (e) The decision of the respondent Director of Consolidation is bad in law, he having not considered all the evidences as laid by the petitioner. Further such decision is also perverse, the evidences having been discussed by the Director in a completely arbitral and cryptic manner. 9. Further such decision is also perverse, the evidences having been discussed by the Director in a completely arbitral and cryptic manner. 9. Counsel for the petitioner on the basis of merit also tried to show this Court that the evidences which the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court it shows that the father of Ram Krit was Hukum Singh and thereby the G. T. submitted by the petitioner is correct one. He advanced his argument claiming 50% share, on the basis of such evidences. 10. On the other hand, counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 6 to 9 submitted that the G. T. submitted by them was correct one. They also wanted to bring to the notice of the Court the cadastral Survey record to show that the same is correct one. It is contended by the counsel for the respondents that on the basis of the same, the decision as has been rendered by the revisional authority, as contained in Annexure-l is correct. 11. However, counsel for the respondents accepted that the original petition which was filed by them before the Consolidation Officer was barred under Section 10(A) of the Act and it was also barred under limitation, no objection having been filed under Section to (3) of the Act within the stipulated period of 45 days. So far the impugned order as contained in Annexure-l is concerned, while I drew his attention towards the last portion, counsel for the respondents submitted that the last portion of Annexure-l is not happily drafted. 12. Having heard the parties, according to me without going into all the detailed merits and the contentions raised by the parties, the revisional order can be held to be illegal simply on one ground. By the impugned order Annexure-8 the revisional authority while discussed many things, it has not at all discussed that the order of the Consolidation Officer, as was passed on 16th November 1978 (Annexre-5), was completely without jurisdiction, being barred under Section 10 (A) of the Consolidation Act as well as being time-barred. This fact has been admitted by the counsel for the respondents that the impugned order dated 16th November 1978 (Annexure-5) is illegal. Such being the position, according to me, it was not open to the revisional authority to confirm the same, as had been done by the impugned order as contained in Annexure-l. 13. This fact has been admitted by the counsel for the respondents that the impugned order dated 16th November 1978 (Annexure-5) is illegal. Such being the position, according to me, it was not open to the revisional authority to confirm the same, as had been done by the impugned order as contained in Annexure-l. 13. For the reasons stated above, I set aside the impugned order dated 23th March 1984 (Annexure 8. The matter is remitted to the Director/Joint Director of Consolidation to again decide the issue after hearing the parties However, if in the mean time, any Notification under Section 26A of the Consolidation Act has already been is sued, then in that case, the respondent revisional authority will direct the parties to move before the appropriate court of law for deciding the dispute. On the other hand, if no Notification under Section 26A of the Consolidation Act is issued by the respondent State, in that case the revisional authority will decide the issue after hearing the parties and going through all the evidences, as will be laid by the parties without looking into the orders passed by the consolidation Officer and/or by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 14. The writ petition is allowed with the impugned aforementioned observation/direction. Application allowed