JUDGMENT N. Pandey, J. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of the Joint Director, Consolidation, dated 22nd March, 1984/14th April, 1984 (Annexure-4) in Consolidation Revision Case No. 251 of 1977 whereby and whereunder a direction has been issued to open chak in the name of respondent nos. 5 to 8 with respect to 20 decimals of land in Revisional Survey Plot No. 796 which was carved out from old survey plot nos. 508 and 509 tauxi no. 9857 mauza Jalalpur Gangati Anchal Mahua. 2. The petitioners are claiming the land in dispute through one Bibi Zainab the first wife of Amiruddin, The nature of the land was recorded in the record of right as Jeerat The name of Mosst. Hafijan was showing in the tenant’s column as Thekedar while name of Bhaulldars are mentioned as Cultivators of the aforesaid two plots. 3. The further case is that during revisional survey, respondent nos. 5 to 8 got their names entered in the record of rights since at that time the petitioners were not present in the village. The petitioners thereafter having learnt about the survey entry filed a suit under section 106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act but due to the commencement of the consolidation proceeding the said suit abated. 4. The petitioners thereafter filed an objection under section 10 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation Act for recording their names over the land in dispute. But the same was rejected with an observation that they can raise such dispute after draft publication under section 11 of the Act. The petitioners thereafter filed an appeal before the Deputy Director who, by his order dated 28th March, 1977, passed an order for recording the names of he petitioners with respect to the land in dispute. 5. Respondents nos. 5 to 8, being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Director, Consolidation, filed a Consolidation Revision no. 251 of 1977. The matter was heard and the learned Director, allowed the revision application holding that after vesting of the Zamindari, Bibi Hafizan would be deemed to be absolute owner of the property. 5. Respondents nos. 5 to 8, being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Director, Consolidation, filed a Consolidation Revision no. 251 of 1977. The matter was heard and the learned Director, allowed the revision application holding that after vesting of the Zamindari, Bibi Hafizan would be deemed to be absolute owner of the property. The petitioners filed CWJC No. 197 of 1978 against the order of the Director and ultimately by order dated 25th September, 1980, the case was remanded before the Director to permit the parties to allow evidence, both oral and documentary and decide the matter afresh after hearing then the operative part of the order is as below :- “3. The learned counsel for the parties, after consulting their clients, have stated that they agree that they should be given further opportunity of leading evidence in, the case. We consider the joint suggestion as reasonable and direct that the Director would permit both the parties to lead evidence, both oral and documentary and mark them as is done generally in a suit, and then after hearing their counsel decide the case, in accordance with law. The matter is accordingly remanded to the Director.” 6. It appears from the impugned order that in spite of the opportunity given to the parties, no oral evidence was adduced. The learned Director of course considered the documents filed by the parties in support of their claim. But he has failed to appreciate their claim. But he has failed to appreciate that as per the direction of the High Court in the previous writ application, he was required to mark such documents as is generally done is a suit. In other words, documents which have been relied upon by the parties should have been marked as Exhibit in order to admit them for evidence. 7. True it is that the learned Director after perusing different documents has held that the name of respondent nos. 5 to 8 were rightly recorded in the Survey records. It is also found that with respect to the land is dispute, rent was also fixed in the name of these respondents. The learned Director has also held that no convincing document was produced on behalf of the petitioner to establish their claim over the land is dispute. 8. 5 to 8 were rightly recorded in the Survey records. It is also found that with respect to the land is dispute, rent was also fixed in the name of these respondents. The learned Director has also held that no convincing document was produced on behalf of the petitioner to establish their claim over the land is dispute. 8. But a question arises whether in view of specific direction of this Court to the learned Director to mark the documents as is generally done in a suit, was it open to the authority to place reliance over such documents, without admitting them as exhibits in terms of the direction of this Court. In my view, having regard to the specific direction of this Court, the learned Director (Resp. no. 2) should have marked the evidence of the parties as it is generally done in a suit. But in absence of such formalities having been completed I have no option but to quash the order of the learned Director (Resp. no. 2) with a direction to mark the documents of the parties strictly in terms of the order passed by this Court in the previous writ application and recorded his finding in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this writ application is disposed of. But in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs